I am in general agreement with Pink’s argument in A Whole New Mind that the world is rapidly changing and that American education must change to accommodate the new reality. Although the shift is a challenge for me personally, I think my curriculum and that of my Practical Arts colleagues at my middle school are already somewhat in alignment with a right-brain mode of pedagogy. I say it is a challenge for me because, even though I try to be creative at times, I find myself all too often ruled by the linear, logical left hemisphere that has been dominant most of my lifetime.
I have been and am fortunate to work for a principal and superintendent that have given me lots of latitude in developing my Technology Education curriculum. I do not have to teach to a test, do not have to give tests, and therefore, am not subject to the pressures that teachers of academics are under. That freedom has allowed me to develop a more right-brained type of curriculum. While I include a fair amount of science and math in my lessons, most class time is spent on hands-on, project-based activity with children learning by doing. I find that in that type of learning a major objective is the encouragement of innovation and creativity. The other Practical Arts subjects that are part of my school’s Practical Arts team—computer applications, music (digital and traditional), problem solving, and art—also stimulate creativity with project-based units in their classes. And not surprisingly, the students look forward to our classes as a relief from their more traditional text-book-oriented classes.
While this is a great situation for me, it is at school-budget-election time I and my fellow Practical Arts teachers get nervous. Even though we know what we teach in our classes is just as valuable as the academic classes, when something has to be cut it is we who are looked at. While that is a personal concern, it also brings up a general educational concern. So often, because of the way educational funding is structured, long-term goals are often tossed over-board in order to fulfill short-term financial needs.
Matters are made worse with the No-Child-Left-Behind obsession with rigid testing. Creative curriculum is sacrificed at the alter of the “All Children Must Succeed” mantra. Yes, but, succeed at what? Taking tests?
As long as politicians dictate what happens in our schools and as long as education is funded the way it currently is, I’m afraid that the only schools that have hope of developing along the lines that Pink envisions will be the wealthier ones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Freedom is key point that you bring up. When you have the freedom to create, your students benefit, right? If school also have the freedom from NCLB requirements due to small sizes or good test scores, then they also have the "freedom to be".
I often think about that too -- underfunded districts that focus on literacy and math achievement over the arts. But it's those kids who are struggling at home that need an outlet and something hands-on -- something they can actually control and manipulate and be able to express how they're feeling.
Dear Norbert,
You made a lot of great points in your post. You stated that you facilitate a lot of hands-on project-based activities that encourage creativity. I feel this is a terrific approach that teachers do not utilize enough. I am a biology teacher, and I, too, engage my students by getting them involved in hands-on activities, such as building models out of manipulatives and labs. I encourage students to be innovative and creative by requiring that the first lab that they perform be one that they create. Considering the first topic that I teach is the scientific method, this is perfect. By being forced to think creatively, students gain a better appreciation for the topic. They come out of the experience feeling like scientists and having learned a lot. In addition, for every lab assignment, I require that students write a discussion about what happened. When I grade these discussions, I look for a logical explanation of what happened and why it happened. If the response is wrong, but it is creative and the thought process is easily understood then I still give the students credit. The reason I do this is because, in my opinion, it is very important that students think critically and creatively. In essence, thinking creatively is more important than knowing the correct answer.
You also discussed your negative opinion of the No Child Left Behind legislation. You feel that it is stifling the ability of teachers to teach a "creative curriculum". While I agree with you to some extent, I think this legislation has different effects depending on the type of school. For example, in Ramsey High School and Cresskill High School, where I have worked, standardized tests simply act as motivation to come up with more innovative ways to help students learn. However, from my student teaching experience, I am well aware of the effect of high-stakes testing on the curriculum in an under-performing district. In this type of school, it is essential to teach to the test. The cost of this is obvious. The most important skill, creativity, is usually under-emphasized or ignored.
Do you think creativity should be added to the state standards in each subject area? Would such an action force teachers to encourage students to hone their creativity skills? Also, do you think it is possible to assess creativity on standardized tests?
Sincerely,
Marc Vogel
Yes, I certainly find that my own experience is evidence of students benefiting from my having the freedom to create. And I have more freedom because my curriculum is not directly governed by NCLB.
I also agree that kids struggling at home need a hands-on outlet to express themselves. They probably need it more than any other students, but you'll most likely find that avenue less available to them in many of the districts that they are in.
Regarding Marc's comments:
Your observation that standardized testing motivates teachers to come up with innovative ways to teach students in the wealthier districts is interesting. I had not heard nor considered that before, and now I have gained a new perspective. The high-stakes testing in under-performing areas does, as you point out, have a high cost, and I don't know enough about the problems there to offer an intelligent solution.
In general, my opinion about NCLB is that it takes a big hammer and beats all the schools with it, when the main problem is in some urban and rural areas. My school, and probably most suburban schools, was doing fine and did not need punitive threats if arbitrary and, sometimes, unrealistic benchmarks were not reached.
Great questions about including creativity in the state standards. I think that would be very difficult, but it is worth looking at and considering. Creativity is not easy to define, and to attempt to standardize it presents problems. I am aware that that presents a fundamental problem. How does a district encourage and enforce creativity and innovation? I'm not sure it is a problem that will ever have a satisfactory solution.
Accountability is difficult to establish, and a high level of trust is involved. Taking my own situation as an example, I work hard to make the curriculum interesting, rigorous and innovative, and I believe that my administration knows that. I can also see how, with low accountability, some teachers could take advantage of the situation.
The only way I can see creativity being assessed, especially in academic areas, is to teach and then test for synthesis--symphony.
Dear Norbert,
I can definitely see how you have the perspective that the No Child Left Behind legislation has been more of a headache for wealthy suburban schools than anything else. I understand your sentiments because I, too, work in a very wealthy suburban district. I can honestly say that the No Child Left Behind legislation has lead to few, if any, significant improvements to the quality of education provided at my school. However, the standardized testing requirements certainly add a level of stress to the job that was not present before.
On the other hand after additional thought, I think that the administration of standardized tests might very well be a "necessary evil" in underperforming districts. When I did my student teaching at Dunn Middle School in Trenton, New Jersey I discovered the massive number of difficulties that inner city schools have. Unfortunately, one of the problems that faces Trenton schools is a high level of teacher burnout. I think standardized testing might "light a fire" under individual teachers who are “burnt out”. Since the penalties for not meeting the standards set by the No Child Left Behind legislation are severe, there is little doubt that these “burnt out” teachers will feel pressure to perform at a higher level. In wealthy suburban areas, school districts do not have the same issues, and thus, the No Child Left Behind legislation often is just a nuisance for them.
Also, you mentioned that if we were to consider adding creativity to standardized testing we would have to be able to define it first. I agree with you that this is a difficult task. I do understand that many teachers have different definitions for creativity and that some teachers may not be able to define it at all. However, if we standardize the definition for creativity then maybe people would have an easier time determining whether or not student work is creative. Personally, I would embrace a standardized test rubric that includes creativity because I could then base my grading in my classes on that rubric. I always fear the possibility of a parent challenging me on my grading of creativity because I do not know how to defend it. Such a standardized test rubric would help provide me with a defense.
Sincerely,
Marc
Post a Comment