One more time around the curriculum

Can our curriculum be student centered AND leave no child behind, posits Gayle Andrews in her excellent curriculum article in the November 2008 issue of Middle School Journal? Gayle talks about the changing context for the original vision of Turning Points 2000 when it was published in 2000...

"In a world increasingly focused on accountability, extensive federal and state legislation, policies, and mandates seem to clutter the educational landscape and obscure and perhaps overshadow the students who should dominate it."

This is the second encounter I've had today with the essential notion of young adolescents as the focal point for middle level education. Imagine that. Maybe we are making some progress...or merely returning "back to the future." Here, in this article, Gayle Andrews makes a critical point about redefining some priorities.

And here is where it gets sticky..."Turning Points 2000 called for integrating curriculum across disciplines, a seemingly problematic suggestion in light of discipline-based standards and high-stakes tests." But, Andrews delivers the clincher when she points out the (curriculum) elephant sitting in the room, "Although disciplines and departments have reigned in schools for more than a century, few could reasonably contend that these structures have led most students to deep understanding in the various subjects." Ouch. Of course they don't, because they are disciplines in departments are organizational conveniences that only give a semblance of order, structure, and yes, learning.

Later, Andrews indicates that if she and co-author, Tony Jackson, were to write Turning Points 2008...they would turn the first recommendation about curriculum "on its head....In a new version, the concerns of young adolescents would be the primary foundation for curriculum, with standards and how students learn best in a close tie for second."

The rest of the article makes a case for returning to integrated curriculum and centering on students as the middle level focus. Among several other important points is the one that Andrews acknowledges..."...the limitations of teaching concepts absent a rich context that students find relevant and meaningful." There is no doubt...and everyone is writing about it...that the current system lacks that rich context because teachers focus on the details within the standards rather than the overarching concepts.

The solution...we must get teachers thinking again about the big picture...and not the details of disciplines and test items. If you haven't read this gem of an article—and it carries a big punch—walk, don't run to secure your copy.

When isn't blogging?

I've been reading Will Richardson's excellent book, Blogs, Wikis, and Podcasts. It is well written, inspiring, and very useful for getting started with these tools. His comments about blogging in particular made me think about how we are using our blogs this semester. He makes several points about the differences between writing and blogging...

"Writing stops; blogging continues. Writing is inside; blogging is outside. Writing is monologue; blogging is conversation. Writing is thesis; blogging is synthesis."

Then he gives a spectrum or continuum of different types of Weblog posts to show where posting ends and blogging starts. I know where I fall on this spectrum and it isn't where I would like to be. Where does your blogging fit?

1. Posting assignments. (Not blogging)

2. Journaling, i.e. "This is what I did today." (Not blogging)

3. Posting links. (Not blogging)

4. Links with descriptive annotation, i.e., "This site is about..." (Not really blogging either, but getting close depending on the depth of the description)

5. Links with analysis that gets into the meaning of the content being linked. (A simple form of blogging)

6. Reflective, metacognitive writing on practice without links. (Complex writing, but simple blogging, I think. Commenting would probably fall in here somewhere.)

7. Links with analysis and synthesis that articulate a deeper understanding or relationship to the content being linked and written with potential audience response in mind. (Real blogging)

8. Extended analysis and synthesis over a longer period of time that builds on previous posts, links, and comments. (Complex blogging)

Wherever we are on this continuum...let's see if we can push our blogging to higher levels.

Ideas that are a Mile High...and at least that far away

Another National Middle School Association annual conference is over...I've been to every NMSA conference since 1976 (except 1981, when we were waiting for son Christopher to be born). Lots of ideas, discussions, forward progress, and backsliding in all of those years. This year's themes were very similar to those of the past—perhaps that is reassuring. Jim Collins, From Good to Great, was an excellent keynote...focused and very appropriate for middle level schools...many of whom stopped (improving) at the "good" level. This happens lots of ways in middle level schools...where schools attempt to keep teams "equal" and consequently don't allow them to develop to their full potential...with teachers who are "held back" by their peers through subtle "don't me me look bad peer pressure," and with "aim for the middle of the pack" curricula that is done to kids instead of involving them.

Also, really enjoyed Will Richardson's session on learning and technology. Hard-hitting and to the point. Will and Alan November (another NMSA keynoter) and others are the new progressives as they attempt to get us to realize that student involvement in their own learning is more critical than ever before. While the technology is alternately dazzling and off-putting...the reality it that it is there and our students need to use to learn it just as we learned to use typewriters, pencils, and more.

Curriculum...why does it drive us so crazy?

Is it because teachers control so little of the decisions that go into day to day curriculum decisions? Or is it because teachers are frustrated that they are in such a rut about curriculum...dancing to the test prep and assessment beat...with little or no excitement for the engaging things they used to do with kids. How have we gotten so far away from the basic middle level principles in the curriculum area?

A challenge. What if every middle level teacher spent half their class time engaging their students in work that originates from the many questions (powerful and compelling) they have about themselves and the world. Twenty-five years ago, Joan Lipsitz wrote in her powerful book, Successful Schools for Young Adolescents, that exemplary middle level schools could deliver on the two things that the public wants...high test scores and disciplined student behavior AND do so when kids were involved in an authentic curriculum. Learning about important things that grabbed their attention and made them excited about learning.

An ironic title?

There is no doubt that these are interesting times in middle level education...ok, at any level of education. For some reason not consistently experienced by elementary or high schools, the middle level continues to be misunderstood. The future of middle level education? The experts say that the future is also the past...where we say it should be but have never gone! Everyone else continues to look for new directions...k-8 schools, more rigor, more testing, getting tougher with kids, and more.

But these aren't the things that ultimately will make schools for young adolescents better...or their students smarter. There are no silver bullets for middle level schools...just lots of hard work to do... the work that research and our gut feelings tell us to do, even if those things are not currently in fashion.

The real irony is that we DO know what makes a difference in middle level schools and on this the experts agree...adults who know young adolescents well and want to work with them, a relevant and engaging curriculum, an inviting, supportive, and safe environment and much more.

When are we going to get it right?