http://websites.nylearns.org/slocicero/2014/9/2/389661/page.aspx
A PDF of the American Pageant. The Textbook that I used.
How Can The Education System Stay Relevant?
- Thread starter Kellan Sullivan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- education
A PDF of the American Pageant. The Textbook that I used.
Another of my issues as a Teacher, is the fact that many people believe that American Education is a organized group that aims to push a Liberal agenda on the Students.
This is ridiculous. Most teachers are fairly conservative politically. But that does not stop Conservatives from claiming it. Recently the President Son called for Students to defy their teachers liberal Brainwashing.
I would have loved as a new teacher to have either a national or a school curriculum . I was told that a older teacher would help me get started. He threw the Textbook "The American Pageant " at me and told me to read it. He recommended that I have about 2 week of lectures ready to go before the start of school. I started to make a list of things a that I wanted to talk about. The first item was what did the US constitution say and why was it written the way it was. The Second item was why were all the amendments add and how did they change things in the United States. The third item was what Supreme Court Cases played a major role in the History of the United States.
Those formed the cores of my lectures for over 25 years.
No one could ever call me a liberal. I was a volunteer for the Alabama Republican Party. There were topics that I was far more critical on then most teachers, FDR and the New Deal was one that I used to generate discussion with the students and I would take the position that FDR programs made the Great Depression worst.
I never had any one tell me that I need to teach any liberal agenda.
This seems to be a rather universal theme, since our local populists use the very same arguments.
Only if you read it analytically in order to see why our text books are so awful. I freed myself from the tyranny of the textbook for about six years..before my new superintendent said she wanted me to return to it. I had replaced it with readings from other books, magazine articles, an atlas, several novels and lots of worksheets, study guides, class projects, and research. I did copy sections from various text books that I found useful, but as an instrument of instruction..they are mind numbing.Thanks! It'll make for an interesting read.
I do read these books analytically. As I told him, my interest in these textbooks is to understand the point of views of individuals there on their own History, on their system, on the rest of the planet.
I'm one of those people that believe we need to rebuild the entire system from the ground up..knowing full well that it won't happen..but that it should.
I retired in July of 2016 after 36 years of teaching. Nineteen years of teaching social studies (mostly history, geography, and government) at the HS level, one year as a volunteer at an alternative HS and working at a non-profit called OperationFreshStart, and the final 16 years teaching GED social studies, Civics, and ESL at a medium security prison in Wisconsin. I also was an instructor in the US Army Reserves for 10 years (field medic, and NBC Defense). I also have 5 grown children, 3 of whom are involved in education (preschool, special education, and university).
I think our educational system has failed us, not for a lack of effort. I was a part of it and saw and participated in the effort, I put in the time, spent money (mine and the districts) to do my best, but I think I could have been twice the teacher I was and still failed. Look at what we've elected...not just president, what we've filled the chambers of Congress with..and our State Legislatures and governors offices. People send money to "televangelists" and other hucksters. Reality TV rules the airwaves and talk radio substitutes for civil thought and discussion. Millions text and tweet but can't write a decent paragraph. We tolerate urban blight and ugliness along our highways, while museums and performing art centers are on economic life support.
Schools teach us to read but not what is worth reading, and I'm afraid we also develop the ability to think without learning what is worthy of contemplation. We have the power of speech but fail to use it wisely or effectively. We have eyes to see, but fail to appreciate what we see. Isn't this what a decent education should lead to? We aren't very wise consumers, nor very literate, or well informed about history, the workings of government, or science.
Shouldn't our educational system be turning out young people who are enlightened, creative, thoughtful, skilled, talented, life-long learners? I'm sure our schools do now...that scattering of young adults that either "got it", or were just born with the right genes...but I think the schools could be designed to turn the 10% into 99%.
First I'd scrap the grade levels. You start school not when a law says you start, but when biology says you're ready. You also move from one level to another when you have shown mastery or competence of a skill, knowledge of information. As you master the skills, achieve the competence, you move on to the more difficult, more complex..not before. It doesn't matter that you're older, it only matters that you understand and are capable. If you can't do it then the system finds a way for you to do it. If it is important enough to be taught it is important enough to be mastered..it is not good enough that you "tried hard". I was constantly passed on to the next higher grade even though I failed math in 7th and 8th grades..I still can't do the times table and never understood Algebra even though I took it for 2 years..I was passed on the second year, as the teacher said.."as a gift". Don't include it in the curriculum if it isn't important enough to learn.
Don't separate the subjects. Is history separate from geography? No. How about science and math? Poetry and science..and literature and history, music and math..and science and art and history and geography and psychology and... Knowledge and thought are not compartmentalized in your brain, they spill over into each other. They should be taught that way.
The school should blend with the community. The students should share what they learn with the people of the community. Put on plays, give talks, interview people, gather and share knowledge. There should be contests between schools...academic, knowledge-based, creative, skills..things that are useful. These could replace the sports...and if you think that too outrageous..intramural sports can be included in the curriculum, outdoor activities, camping, geology, wildlife ecology, etc.
Like I mentioned in an above post...get rid of the textbooks. If ever there was a device designed to kill a student's interest in a subject, the text book is it. With the access to information that technology gives us today why stay stuck to those dead weights.
Blur the line between the community and the school. I think it is important to have trained, licensed teachers, but why not take more advantage of the local talent? Bring in the banker and the president of the credit union, the business owners, doctors, pharmacists, DNR specialists, government officials, farmers, local artisans, writers, and others...not just to "talk to the class" but to teach classes, be part of the curriculum. Students could shadow them for credit, they could team with them for community service credit. Community members should teach classes "after hours" for extra credit that adults could also take.
A lot of changes would have to take place..in the training of teachers, the buildings, the role parents and non-parents play...but if we want our schools to help solve our growing list of problems changes need to be made. Some already are being made...I fear most "reforms" though are only cosmetic, or band aides.
I retired in July of 2016 after 36 years of teaching. Nineteen years of teaching social studies (mostly history, geography, and government) at the HS level, one year as a volunteer at an alternative HS and working at a non-profit called OperationFreshStart, and the final 16 years teaching GED social studies, Civics, and ESL at a medium security prison in Wisconsin. I also was an instructor in the US Army Reserves for 10 years (field medic, and NBC Defense). I also have 5 grown children, 3 of whom are involved in education (preschool, special education, and university).
I think our educational system has failed us, not for a lack of effort. I was a part of it and saw and participated in the effort, I put in the time, spent money (mine and the districts) to do my best, but I think I could have been twice the teacher I was and still failed. Look at what we've elected...not just president, what we've filled the chambers of Congress with..and our State Legislatures and governors offices. People send money to "televangelists" and other hucksters. Reality TV rules the airwaves and talk radio substitutes for civil thought and discussion. Millions text and tweet but can't write a decent paragraph. We tolerate urban blight and ugliness along our highways, while museums and performing art centers are on economic life support.
Schools teach us to read but not what is worth reading, and I'm afraid we also develop the ability to think without learning what is worthy of contemplation. We have the power of speech but fail to use it wisely or effectively. We have eyes to see, but fail to appreciate what we see. Isn't this what a decent education should lead to? We aren't very wise consumers, nor very literate, or well informed about history, the workings of government, or science.
Shouldn't our educational system be turning out young people who are enlightened, creative, thoughtful, skilled, talented, life-long learners? I'm sure our schools do now...that scattering of young adults that either "got it", or were just born with the right genes...but I think the schools could be designed to turn the 10% into 99%.
First I'd scrap the grade levels. You start school not when a law says you start, but when biology says you're ready. You also move from one level to another when you have shown mastery or competence of a skill, knowledge of information. As you master the skills, achieve the competence, you move on to the more difficult, more complex..not before. It doesn't matter that you're older, it only matters that you understand and are capable. If you can't do it then the system finds a way for you to do it. If it is important enough to be taught it is important enough to be mastered..it is not good enough that you "tried hard". I was constantly passed on to the next higher grade even though I failed math in 7th and 8th grades..I still can't do the times table and never understood Algebra even though I took it for 2 years..I was passed on the second year, as the teacher said.."as a gift". Don't include it in the curriculum if it isn't important enough to learn.
Don't separate the subjects. Is history separate from geography? No. How about science and math? Poetry and science..and literature and history, music and math..and science and art and history and geography and psychology and... Knowledge and thought are not compartmentalized in your brain, they spill over into each other. They should be taught that way.
The school should blend with the community. The students should share what they learn with the people of the community. Put on plays, give talks, interview people, gather and share knowledge. There should be contests between schools...academic, knowledge-based, creative, skills..things that are useful. These could replace the sports...and if you think that too outrageous..intramural sports can be included in the curriculum, outdoor activities, camping, geology, wildlife ecology, etc.
Like I mentioned in an above post...get rid of the textbooks. If ever there was a device designed to kill a student's interest in a subject, the text book is it. With the access to information that technology gives us today why stay stuck to those dead weights.
Blur the line between the community and the school. I think it is important to have trained, licensed teachers, but why not take more advantage of the local talent? Bring in the banker and the president of the credit union, the business owners, doctors, pharmacists, DNR specialists, government officials, farmers, local artisans, writers, and others...not just to "talk to the class" but to teach classes, be part of the curriculum. Students could shadow them for credit, they could team with them for community service credit. Community members should teach classes "after hours" for extra credit that adults could also take.
A lot of changes would have to take place..in the training of teachers, the buildings, the role parents and non-parents play...but if we want our schools to help solve our growing list of problems changes need to be made. Some already are being made...I fear most "reforms" though are only cosmetic, or band aides.
Our text books are written so as not to offend anyone. They are also written to sell to the largest markets..Texas being one of the largest that buys 'in bulk' and has a state textbook committee determines what they are looking for in a text. Oh...my. There is your prescription for an academic disaster
So im not an english native and as this is not a field I touched on in english the terms im using might not be correct.
That said what I think in today's world would be a huge benefit is source criticism. What I mean is I was history major at the university and we had so many classes on historography and source criticism that it was practically beaten in to us. And though I have bored myself to death on those classes they succeded. And I think this is a great thing and should be thought much earlier and not only for prospective historians - and maybe in a less boring way with a lot of practical examples. And especially as we live in a world of trump and putin where fake news have succeeded in at the very least questioning and distorting whats real for a lot of people and influencing them in a way that drastically changed our lives. People in general should be much more critical about the information they receive and ask the question: Just where does that come from? Right know school - at least here - doesnt encourage you to make that question - more like the opposite.
That said what I think in today's world would be a huge benefit is source criticism. What I mean is I was history major at the university and we had so many classes on historography and source criticism that it was practically beaten in to us. And though I have bored myself to death on those classes they succeded. And I think this is a great thing and should be thought much earlier and not only for prospective historians - and maybe in a less boring way with a lot of practical examples. And especially as we live in a world of trump and putin where fake news have succeeded in at the very least questioning and distorting whats real for a lot of people and influencing them in a way that drastically changed our lives. People in general should be much more critical about the information they receive and ask the question: Just where does that come from? Right know school - at least here - doesnt encourage you to make that question - more like the opposite.
I remember reading Richard Feynman's "experience" in a textbook committee. It was "fun", to say the least, heh heh.
In terms of alternate history, education reform tends to go in cycles:
-A panic about technological progress relative to the Soviets after Sputnik which led to an emphasis on increasing rigor and adding science and math to the curriculum
-Followed by a shift towards emphasizing personal and social development in the 60s and 70s
-Which the Reagan administration killed by publishing A Nation at Risk, which kicked off the modern narrative of failing schools and led to an emphasis on rigor and testing that culminated in the No Child Left Behind Act,
-Followed by a backlash to the NCLB and Common Core and a shift back towards personal development, now using the buzzword social emotional learning.
If you want to radically change the education system, you should probably use one of these inflection points as the POD. For example, having the federal government take a more active role in the post-Sputnik era could lead to a sustained emphasis on STEM, or butterflying away A Nation at Risk could lead to an ongoing focus on personal development. However, the kind of education system people envision with kids doing these elaborate projects embedded in the community is probably just not possible. Any education system in a world that's anything like our own is going to need to enable one teacher to supervise 20-30 kids, which mandates something like our current traditional classroom set up.
-A panic about technological progress relative to the Soviets after Sputnik which led to an emphasis on increasing rigor and adding science and math to the curriculum
-Followed by a shift towards emphasizing personal and social development in the 60s and 70s
-Which the Reagan administration killed by publishing A Nation at Risk, which kicked off the modern narrative of failing schools and led to an emphasis on rigor and testing that culminated in the No Child Left Behind Act,
-Followed by a backlash to the NCLB and Common Core and a shift back towards personal development, now using the buzzword social emotional learning.
If you want to radically change the education system, you should probably use one of these inflection points as the POD. For example, having the federal government take a more active role in the post-Sputnik era could lead to a sustained emphasis on STEM, or butterflying away A Nation at Risk could lead to an ongoing focus on personal development. However, the kind of education system people envision with kids doing these elaborate projects embedded in the community is probably just not possible. Any education system in a world that's anything like our own is going to need to enable one teacher to supervise 20-30 kids, which mandates something like our current traditional classroom set up.
So basically, if you want to predict where the education system is going, study what it was doing 20 years ago.
And California too. Obviously, when textbook writers have to design their product to appeal to the people at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum and not say anything to offend either of them, their only option is to say nothing at all.
Another factor that is rarely brought up is the sheer amount of the already limited resources that American schools have being invested into athletics... that the only group that actually benefits from is the major professional sports leagues getting a free ride not having to invest into their own development.
A lot of fair ideas though one goes to university not just to learn for the job market, but also to broaden your horizons.
If you’re going to university just for job learning purposes, you might be better if elsewhere unless it’s somewhere it’s needed.
Home economics is one that’s kinda tricky since that likely changes as the economy changes, especially if it’s worsening or changing faster than it was a couple decades ago.
That's why for about 6 glorious years I didn't use one. I copied portions for use in class. They can be useful as a source of material, references, maps, charts, and so on...but to sit and read that bland paste..ugh. I did my best daydreaming in my US History class in HS because the teacher taught straight from the book. No thought required. Noimagination needed. Just read the chapter and do the questions at the end.
The textbook hate is a little strange from where I'm sitting, probably because I have degrees in physics and mathematics. I find it hard to conceptualize how you could teach a course in those or similar subjects without something that at the very least quacks like a textbook, because the "primary" material--papers or, if you're going really old-school, books--is usually confusing, confused, or impenetrable unless you already know what you're supposed to be learning. It would be crazy to try to learn particle physics by reading papers from the 1940s, '50s, '60s, and '70s, for instance. You simply need something that assembles what we know (or "know") into a pedagogically-appropriate mass and provides problems for students to work so that they can grasp how to actually use what they're reading about, especially at lower levels.
I do kind of understand it for history...you can read actual history books or primary sources or both...but in some fields I think they're basically indispensable and even if you "stopped" using them they'd just reappear under a different name.
I do kind of understand it for history...you can read actual history books or primary sources or both...but in some fields I think they're basically indispensable and even if you "stopped" using them they'd just reappear under a different name.
Yep. The vast majority of what I know about history I learned after high school through independent research
It seems that they describe a situation where history is very highly politicized, making it a lot less objective when it comes to teaching.