Before finals in American Studies class, we were presented with an editorial on a Florida law that required history to be taught as a collection of facts, not as something constructed. We discussed the detrimental effect that this law could have on schools and classes such as ours and then moved on. I was prompted to return to the subject when I in science class our teacher gave us an editorial called "Trivializing Science Education" by Bruce Alberts, which discussed a 1998 California law regulating science education.
The law is quite different than the Florida law, and has some different problems, but also some similar ones. For example, "an overly strict attention to rules, procedure and rote memorization." Rote memorization has little place in a science curriculum. Laws of physics and such are to be understood, not memorized. If you don't understand Newton's first law there is no point in being able to recite it. Biology classes are the most vulnerable to this, and I found my biology class last year to be primarily memorization based, but the memorization was set in a background of understanding broader themes and concepts, and seemed purposeful. What the article points out is especially dangerous is requiring children to memorize facts "that the vast majority of them cannot yet grasp," such as requiring fifth graders to memorize the periodic table of elements (which the law did).
Despite some of their differences, I think the California and Florida laws were probably driven by the same motivation. Alberts suggests that "the preference for 'rigor' in science education" is the motivation, because it leads to "the unfortunate result...that difficult concepts are taught too early" and "an overly strict attention to rules, procedure and rote memorization." It is not hard to believe that a similar desire for rigor in history education could lead to the over-emphasis on tests and facts found in the Florida law.
Of course, I must tack on a disclaimer to the above statement - elements of the Florida law such as downplaying the Constitution and highlighting the Declaration of Independence do not have any clear link to rigor and are probably the result of other motivations. I am just speaking of the emphasis on testing and facts.
But why does the search for rigorous education lead to an over-emphasis on memorization? Why can't a conceptually based curriculum be rigorous?
The definition of "rigor" seems to be taking on new connotations at New Trier as classes like American Studies and Integrated History and Science gain popularity. Instead of teaching quantitatively, these classes are based on the quality of the material and what each student takes away from the class - whether that be content or skills, like effective writing. However, with the Florida and California laws, it seems that they are going trying to find the most time-effective way to teach as much quantitative material as possible. Students are reciting elements from the Period Table to get that 95% on the test...but unless they end up becoming a chemist, will they ever use that information outside of the classroom walls?
ReplyDeleteThe problems with this are obvious to people like you and me because we're in a conceptually based class right now and are reaping the benefits. It doesn't matter if we remember all of the content we've learned but the skills we're developing, both for school and for life, will be extremely beneficial to us in the years to come. I think it's time that the different types of "rigor" are addressed and schools start addressing teaching for the life skills rather than for the test.