Autocomplicated

I didn't have an easy time thinking up what to write about this week. So instead of poring through my notes like I usually do, I decided to see what the rest of the world thought about some common topics. So in order to gauge common perception, I did what anyone else would do and used the autocomplete feature for Google searches. For my first search, I tried, “Why is school...” and, to be honest, the results weren't totally surprising.

Auto-complete search results when you search for why is school:

• Why is school important?
• Why is school so hard?
• Why is school so boring?
• Why is school so expensive?
• Why is school so long?

The next I tried was on a much more personal note. I tried, “Why are teachers...” and, save for the last results, the results were once again unsurprising.

Auto-complete search results when you search for why are teachers:

• Why are teachers important?
• Why are teachers striking in BC?
• Why are teachers so stupid?
• Why are teachers so boring?
• Why are teachers mandated reporters?

I decided to go a different route, and gave “Why is education...” a shot instead. And the results were eye-opening.

Auto-complete search results when you search for why is education:

• Why is education important?
• Why is education so important?
• Why is education important in life?
• Why is education important in developing countries?
• Why is education so expensive?

Meanwhile, all of the results for “learning should...” are variations of either be fun, or be enjoyable.

You better brace yourselves, because we're strapped in for a crash landing on a ship piloted by Captain Obvious. There is a monumental image problem that we're facing, and something as simple as search terms already illustrates this clearly.

There is a big difference between school, education, and learning. They are not supposed to be exclusive to one another, but that's what the trend seems to imply. School should be an environment, not a punishment. Education and learning should be fun and enjoyable, but apparently it isn't. I think we're really fortunate to be at such a self-reflexive point in education history. We're at a point in the midst of the technology boom and we've only recently become glaringly aware of problems apparent in school systems. Schools have existed since before the common era, and I think it's insane that it's taken this long to really get a good handle on it. We're at a point where we can talk to people on the other side of the world instantaneously. I can literally pull a phone out of my pocket, dial a number, have a signal go to outer space, meet up with a satellite, and shoot back down onto the earth, and into the ear of my compatriot. Unless I'm in Market, there are some things that those signals just can't get past.

But back to the trends. We have so many opportunities at our fingertips that I'm finding it hard to imagine that the current state of schooling will last much longer. And I think that's something very positive. I foresee a positive trend in autocomplete forms where instead of “so long,” people will ask why school is “so short.” Or maybe ask how it's so exciting.

But at the same time, I also have some hesitations. I can give someone the best hammer in the world. One with a carbon-fibre handle that conforms to your palm. A screen just above your thumb that states your velocity. Maybe have a little target at the top so you can set your sights, and a cast iron head that can smash through anything. But even with the best hammer in the world, you're never going to put anything together if you don't have any nails.

We are incredibly lucky to live at a time where technology is evolving quickly, but as teachers we're never going to improve if we don't evolve with it. Saying that something worked when you were a student is not an excuse to keep your teaching method static. Spending a day in an antique classroom was great when we were studying pioneer days, but that's not a conducive atmosphere for a 21^st century learner. Although I wouldn't object to bringing back stilts at recess, those were the bomb.

So what I'm trying to say is that we have an image problem. A public perception problem. And it's not going to go away unless we do something about it. We need to start harnessing technology and use it to its full potential. It's not enough to just use it, it's a matter of using it well. 

Avoiding the Crossfire

One of the biggest challenges I foresee in my classroom is the ability to maintain a relevant classroom. And, this being a course about curriculum development, I saw no better place to raise my concerns about the topic.

Often times the curriculum changes to reflect new understandings or radical social changes that have taken place. An article by C.H. Hedson, “Curriculum Changes During the Progressive Era,” reflects this idea. Hedson explains how basic curriculum reform first really took place with the helping hand of Education celebrity and hot topic John Dewey, who decided that the curriculum ought to encompass more than just basic knowledge concerning literacy and arithmetic. With the help of two fellow scholars, Bobbitt and Charters, The Cardinal Principles report was published in 1918. As the article explains,

The Cardinal Principles report in 1918 confirmed this expansion of the curriculum to “educate for life.” The seven objectives were as follows: (a) health, (b) command of fundamental processes, (c) worthy home membership, (d) vocation, (e) citizenship, (f) worthy use of leisure, (g), ethical character. With such broad aims, there was little in life that would not be considered a subject for the school curriculum. (67).

So it would seem that the consensus reached was that the curriculum has a responsibility to not only educate students about their subjects, but also about the world around them and how to interact. Though the terms from the 1918 report may seem outdated (I can only imagine the difference between worthy use of leisure now and then. I wonder how “worthy” Dewey might consider a Netflix marathon), the consensus remains. Surely, it is the school's place to teach children far more than just the ABC's.

So far we've established two things. One, that the curriculum needs to stay relevant to be engaging. Two, that it is the school's place to teach beyond basic knowledge and into life skills. Though that may seem like common sense to a lot of my fellow Education students, it is an important point to make. It's worthwhile to establish a baseline of thought for where this blog's headed. Strap on your helmets and have a cardiologist on speed-dial, because we're about to dive headfirst into the heart of the issue!

Lately I've been seeing plenty of posts and news articles talking about Ontario's proposed updated sex ed curriculum. A brief Facebook search produces results like this group on Facebook which, though extreme, seems to has a message that resonates with enough people. And the issue isn't confined to Facebook, either. Sun News recently aired this piece which for the most part blasted the new curriculum. From my understanding, both the host and the guest are professionals in the field of talk radio. The part I'd like to focus on in the video takes place almost right away, around the 0:45 mark. A quote on the screen appears in favour of revamping the curriculum, insisting that the old curriculum (last updated in 1998) was out-of-date and that can be dangerous. The hosts disagree, the younger of the two joking that he was married in 1998 and the older one, saying he'd been married longer, didn't think he'd need to read the “new manual.”

Incase I haven't been transparent enough, let me be abundantly clear: the purpose of this blog was not to comment on the content of the new curriculum. Not even a little bit. Instead it is to look at the approaches and apprehensions to a proposed curriculum and assess what happens when something continues to be outdated, and the controversy inherent in implementing new things.

Another example of this would be in Colorado, where proposed curriculum changes to history classes caused an uproar when parents and students alike saw the changes as censorship instead of actual history.

I really wish I had the time alotted to talk about this for much longer, the word count at the bottom of the screen indicates that it is time to wind down. It is easy to get lost in the technical application and forget that the practical is usually a whole lot messier. The difference from theory to practice can, and might, be a much more delicate endeavor. As a future teacher, I wonder how curriculum changes with affect the way I teach. How difficult is it to navigate the waters between satisfying parents and giving children ample education? How critical are we allowed to be of proposed curriculum changes? All of this is certainly important to talk about (and I'm sure will be talked about plenty) in the days, weeks, and years to come.