It seems like a simple enough question, but there is no simple answer.
My first guess would be that the parents should have a say in what their children are learning; but as I read more and more complaints about prayer being taken out of school, evolution being taught in school, or the debate about Intelligent Design being taught in school, I don't think I have much for faith in the parents selecting the curriculum than I would anyone else.
Then there is the thought of the government dictating certain curriculum criteria for each grade. To an extent, this is already being done. But let's face it, our government is not made up of the most intelligent people, nor do they seem to have a real connection to the needs or capabilities of children. So who are they to try to teach others?
There are some educational programs in which the child decides what he is going to learn that day. I believe this to be the best option - considering the three.
Now, before you start throwing things at me saying "children don't know what they want" or "children don't understand what's important to learn and what's not" let's take a look at the evidence that exists that children can and do comprehend much more than their parents give them credit for.
In Reggio Emilia, Italy, they have a public school system that does just that. It is a pre-K system children begin when they are as young as 6 months old and stay in before entering kindergarten at 5 years old. This approach to early childhood education (called, originally enough, the Reggio Emilia Approach) has been rated as the number one educational system in the world. There is no set curriculum defined by adults. Instead the teachers (there are two teachers per class, not one teacher and an assistant teacher, they are on the same level) look for opportunities to learn. They take the kids out for a walk, for example, and when a child expresses interest in the clouds, they begin doing experiements and art projects that teach the kids about the formation of these clouds and what they do. If it remains an interest, it will go on into experiments with rain and etc. Every day is something new.
The students in Reggio Emilia have been shown to have a higher understanding of their surroundings, feel important within their community and balance their individuality with the feeling of a team. Additionally, they are found to be able to think critically at a much younger age than students their age from other cultures.
Why have we not looked into this further? As Americans, it seems as though we shoo our children out the door onto a bus, expect the bus driver to get the kids safely to school, expect the teachers to mold our children into thinking, responsible, independent adults without any effort from us. Our children are being passed from grade to grade and no one realizes until high school (at times) that they cannot read, or do basic math. Teacher-centered classrooms are failing miserably. It's time for a change.
If as adults we cannot develop a system that intrigues kids and interests them in learning, it's time we begin letting the children show us how to teach.
Itis interesting what you bring up, because as a preschooler i attended a school that taught similarley and my parents loved it, so did I. We learned through experiments and doing things with our hands. We basically did what interested us at the time. It was a great experience, not that i remember much, but i do remember looking forward to going to school. I was there up until second grade, and it was the best way of learning for me. I wish we could see more of that today, i think children would highly benefit from it.
There are a handful of schools (mostly in the western regions) that have begun adopting the Reggio Emilia Approach over the past few decades, and it has been working wonders for them. The kids appear to be much happier and attentive than students in a more "traditional American" teacher-centered school environment.
Another interesting note, since I am working on a paper on this very thing for my own school district to try and adopt this method - none of the child-centered curriculum schools have any cases of children with A.D.D. or A.D.H.D. - whereas many of the other schools have something like 1/25 or 1/20 kids on medication for A.D.D. or A.D.H.D.
It makes me wonder how many of the kids sitting on Ritalin actually have A.D.D., and how many just have teachers that don't know how to cope with or communicate with them.
--------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
THis is an intereting and cool idea. I wish I had benefited form it. I am a little concerned about how far up the age/education ladder you can push the idea. Little kids are generally curious about their surroundings and wish to learn and ask questions far more than other things. What happens when other things become more important?
It also seems to me that higher math or anything beyond basic reading and writing would be left for most children. I guess it could be argued that only those interested will retain such information anyway. God knows I couldn't do a trig problem anymore and I am only 20.
Anway, back to the age thing... No, nevermind I am thinking too traditionally (see, another problem with American schools). Especially now that we have the internet, and lots of reliable information on it, and soon access to almost every book in print through various electronic sources a school could be a learning center where children of all ages go to learn exactly what they feel like, whenever they feel like it. Teachers could be tutor/librarians instead of lecturers.
I love it. I may write my own blog. I will certainly give you credit. My mind is whirling, let me go get some paper or something.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
My guess is that if we continue this type of education up until about the third or fifth grade years, just before friends generally become a child's largest influence, that it will be enough practice in critical thought that they will continue to use such thought-processes throughout middle school and high school - when the math and literature becomes much more complicated.
Once in middle school and high school, students will no doubt still be in that "questioning" mode, so the classes will be able to go from lecture halls with a boring teacher standing in front of a chalk board into more of a seminar, where they can begin participating more in their learning.
How much more fun would our Chemistry classes have been if we actually got to help determine some of our lab work? Just imagine the Biology class where instead of always disecting a frog or fetal pig, someone says "but how does it all work in an owl?" and the next day they are discovering that?
-----------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
I've gone to public school in Kansas my entire life, and as you probably know, Kansas is at the center of the Creation/Evolution debate. In my opinion, the parents that are lobbying for Creationism are getting a little TOO involved in school. When I was in middle school, no one ever thought that this would become as big of an issue as it is. To me, it's pretty simple: if you want your kids to learn Creationism, and are that adamant about the school system changing, how about instead you send your kid to private school, or better yet, homeschool? Private school isn't really that expensive anymore, besides if you really want to go, most schools offer financial aid programs.
And with NCLB, I think government involvement in school is even too strict. This system was introduced my sophomore year of high school, and as far as I'm concerned, it has done us as students no good. So the only solution I see is for school to just be completely separate from the federal government. It should be an issue of states' rights, where individual states decide what requirements are enough. This would also lessen the need for so much standardized testing, allowing students to learn more since the teacher isn't just teaching from the test.
The bottom line is, instead of issues about what we should teach in school being a powerstruggle, we should listen to the students and think about what really is best for them : to learn.
I agree to an extent that schools should be managed more by the state and less by the federal government - but there are problems even with that to be fixed before that would be efficient.
The world, as you've no doubt noticed, is a lot smaller than it used to be, and many people do not stay where they were born and raised. Jobs are else where, schools are else where, and the criteria and jobs vary from state to state.
I am in school to attain my Master's to teach history at the high school level in Texas. I could have gone for just a BA and a teacher's certificate - but that would have limited me to teaching only in Texas (currently ranked number 19 in the nation for education) or in any state lower in rank. My mother lives in Connecticut (currently ranked number 4 in the nation) - so what if I wanted to go live closer to her? I wouldn't be able to get a job because the criteria is different for teaching in Texas than it is to teach in Connecticut.
Of course, I could have decided to try to teach in Louisiana - where the only requirement is a high school diploma and pass the PRAXIS test - but then I wouldn't have been able to teach any where.
So, there should be some program in place that says what children should be learning by a certain age group; but that doesn't mean the government should be able to choose how exactly to teach that.
-----------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
Yeah, i understand where you're coming from. I get how the idea of a standard system would be helpful, but it just doesnt seem logical to go about it the way that they have been with NCLB.
Oh no, that "No Child Left Behind" crap will never work!
The biggest problem with it is that they said okay, every school has to teach these things, and every child has to learn them - but we're not going to help you pay for the changes in your program to be sure you can handle these changes.
It's a complete load of, well, crap, that was not thought out very well before implementing it.
-------------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
Yeah, I also think that they shouldn't completely try to overhaul the system all at once. Because that adds more stress to the schools, and also to the students.
You as a student, I dont get why do I have to learn half the stuff that I'm learning. I'm trying to become a Graphic Designer, so what does that have to do with Math and Science. I even did a paper in school as to what and how many maths I schould take in college and the answer was........1. I think that even through high school and schedule of classes should really be based on a career path........for real and not just forcing math, science, english, and history.
It makes little sense to study and get a diploma and still have to take tests just to be able to get to the end. If you ask me, they should eliminate all the basic tests but only use content exams in areas we want to teach. Why put barriers if we are in a teaching shortage. THere should be governance over colleges that teach the future.
Published Author and Poet
Teacher Education Student.