What worries me is that these great results are a side effect of good teaching of possibly less-important content. Why not make all those things the focus of a good curriculum and then have different content knowledge be the side effect? Some would learn about Australian Aborigines, others would learn about Native Americans, but ALL WOULD BECOME SUCCESSFUL THINKERS.

Am I under-valuing content knowledge?

Glad you found this post, Jenn. Nice to continue this conversation.

Thanks for the comment! I posted this comment on your blog, but it didn’t appear for ages, awaiting moderation. Just thought I’d continue the converstation here….

Comments like yours and others are exactly what I was hoping for when I posted my question.

I would never undermine our curriculum with students, but I would encourage them to question and critically evaluate what they do and why they do it. I don’t believe that any curriculum coordinator or educator would not value these qualities in a student when used appropriately and in the best interest of their learning.

I do worry that we too often accept and offer the response that we teach the content curriculum we do because kids need it to get into college and then get a good job. Surely there must be a better defense than this - despite the undeniable practicality of that answer.

I taught math. So I am more than used to the “when am I ever going to use this” question. And I had an answer. It’s about a way of thinking. It’s about processing and solving problems. It’s about understanding and being amazed by a human-created system/language that incredibly explains and predicts our universe. It’s about logic and creativity and ultimately about thinking.

I don’t believe that technology should “dictate the content of what we teach.” In fact, technology has little to do with it other than as the tool you suggest. Instead, I believe (along with most curriculum directors and teachers) that we need to value thinking, communicating, and collaborating skills. These will become incredibly important to separate the successful in a world in which “content knowledge” is more and more accessible at the click of a button. (In truth, these skills have always been important.) That we need to embed in all children’s education safe and responsible use of these tools that have the power to harm just as they have the power to connect.

I wonder/question whether we need a traditional curriculum based on content and valuing these skills or instead should we not have a curriculum that focuses on ensuring we create thinkers, communicators, and collaborators, in the context of traditional content curriculum that we value.

I don’t know the answer…but I love the conversation and I am happy to have started/continued the discussion with other smart educators (like yourself) who can offer answers.

Thanks for joining in!

What is the point of higher thinking and reasoning skills when we have leaders who are suppose to be sophisticated and critical thinkers yet do not practice the minimal basics of dealing with people who have conflicting views?

I felt my comments were going to turn to a blog, so I posted one in response. In essence, until higher education changes its expectations for a degree, k-12 education is obliged to address the “traditional” core subjects in meaningful ways. How we lead students to discover this knowledge is different than changing the essential content and skills. We need to prepare students for the box they live in. If we also provide them with the tools to click away at the mortar of this cell, we have done well.

I would rarely do a student a disservice by leading her to believe s/he doesn’t need to demonstrate competency in math, science, the arts, with fluency and a perspective of the history of “modern” civilization. To do so would be setting him up for failure or disillusionment.

Thanks for making me think - whether within the confines or outside of the box!

Shaggyhill,
It’s certainly the expected and valid answer for history…so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past…but do we teach it that way? Do our history students get that what they are learning about is the “what worked” and “what didn’t” of the past? Are we challenging our kids enough to think of themselves as “creators of our future”? A great line by the way.

Awesome 2nd paragraph by the way…we are on the same train of thought, you and I.

I guess both of my responses here speak more to pedagogy and engaging kids than they do to curriculum choices. I suppose it says that if our curriculum is in fact justifiable (as it should be), are we doing it justice? And in turn, are we doing our kids justice?

Asking a child to create the future, without analyzing the past, is like telling an athlete to become a pro, without letting them use the experience of a coach. Giving a kid a violin and telling them to get to Carnegie Hall, without any lessons, or even being able to hear the music of other violinists. I know that it is better to experience something in order to gain wisdom from the actions, but I hope, really hope, that is some way I can deliver an experience in my history class that lets kids gain some wisdom from other’s experiences, and that they use that wisdom to guide their creation of a better future.

If we can’t answer why for everything we are teaching, we should not be teaching it. I just asked my student teacher yesterday the same question…after explaining what he was going to do I simply asked why do they need this? Why is it important to them? Why is it going to make a difference in there life the second they participate in the activity? After going through the questions I then ask one more…why are you teaching this?…and make your answer fit on a bumper sticker. If you have to give a long winded answer to why something is being taught, it probably more of a defense than a reason….