Kick ass book. I found myself reading and saying huh... wish I had known that sooner.
This is me answering the prompt question re: "key players and ideas" and then I am going to hop up on my soap box.
The Committee of Ten (late 1880's) : Tried for a balance between individualism and social responsibility with an 8 year sequence - Albert Bushnell Hart.
Committee of 7 (1896): Prepare them For College! -Thinking properly "not about accumulation of information" - The 4 Blocks
1920's & 1930's: "Golden years for advocates of core and issues-centered education" (49) However there was great discussion about this from the anti-progressives who heralded the values of "traditional education"
NCSS (early 1920's): Teachers College, formed in a time of unsteadiness when "Social studies was up for grabs" (36)
The Rugg Version: - Social Justice! (to oversimplify)
WWII: The idea of duty permeated America, "Social studies Mobilize for Victory"- NCSS report. Education became out of necessity: "defense workers, increased attention to geography and war related topics" (70)
late 1940-50:"Let's settle down now" Back to traditional... attacks on progressive, modern content. (97)
Newer Social Studies (1960's) - fed by civil rights, lasting impact of cold war, Vietnam, Huge interest in education and teaching - Paul Goodman (136)
MACOS - Man: a Course of Study (1970's): Federal funding went to this program... and schools were expected to use it... not good. (145)
Hirsch -What every American Needs to Know (1987): Public was still there but there are a bit of a loss for a direction. "political correctness and fragmentation" (161)
Directionlessness -> Traditional History and STANDARDS: For a book published in 2004 I wanted more.
"What should we teach the children?"
What the hell kind of title question is that? I get it.... it fit's with the history of contending content. HOWEVER, upon further inspection, it seems to assume that "the children" are passive lumps which we (as educators) may fill with knowledge. Rather than creating active participants and encouraging students to form their own experiences from which they may learn... we are rocking the gate-keeper roll and imparting "wisdom" from on high. I find the question very "non-freire-ian" as well as a sentiment which I don't necessarily believe the overall text supports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Meredith---
You’re such a lively and smart writer. You really encapsulated the major arguments of the issues. Although I’m not sure why you felt the need to get on the “soapbox.” Even though I know that I can’t pretend to have as strong a theoretical background in education as you have, I do recognize Freire’s work for what it is, namely a theory. Believe me when I say theories are not the end all and be all of anything--- they are merely there to provide a frame work, a set of tools that you can choose to use. Whether you see yourself as a schoolmarm, or a facilitator for children’s exploration, in the end we, as educators are charged with teaching children. How we do that is a matter of personal style and choice... there are many mountaintops, but they all point towards heaven, if you know what I mean.
Nice job creating a succinct and easy to read timeline of major events within the social studies curriculum debate. You've made an incisive observation about the title of the Evans book--it does indeed seem to reflect the "banking" model of pedagogy. I wondered if it was ironic, but haven't been able to decide one way or another because, while we know that Evans endorses an integrated social studies curriculum and critical thinking skills in the classroom, we know a little less about his specific pedagogical inclinations.
--Amy D.
Bonus points for the Freire reference, you three. Excellent work.
Post a Comment