HW 45 - More Big Thoughts on Schools

Please examine some of the following texts. Create a one paragraph summary of the main argument of each of the two thinkers. Using quotes from the text make arguments of your own that address (in a paragraph or two each) one or more of the following angles:

(Notes)
"Cultural Literacy:What every American needs to know"
This best-selling, ground-breaking work spells out the theory behind the Core Knowledge® movement. To be able to function and prosper in society, one must possess the background knowledge that literate writers and speakers assume their audiences already share. Those who know it are culturally literate; the opportunities of a free society are open to them. Schools that neglect to impart this core knowledge leave their students seriously deprived and our democracy weakened.

E.D. Hirsch
>father of the "core knowledge" movement
>"It has no scientific foundation and is used to hold kids back,"
>he explained, that "not every child is learning about James Monroe in the first grade."
>Hirsch worries mostly about elementary schools
>believed, "Students should be able to read and know basic number facts by the end of the first grade"


debate with Ted Sizer over education standards.....

Ted Sizer
>founded the Coalition of Essential Schools
>insisted that coherent standards are needed but must grow from the values of teachers and parents within a school.
>"when smart, devoted peple are given running room to shape standards, students succeed"
>Sizer worries mostly about high schools
>believed "Students should leave school as well-informed skeptics, able to ask good questions as a matter of habit,"
>said, "They correlate with rich parents and not much else. We have to stop equating serious education with test scores."

same.....
>Both agreed that testing results reflect reading levels in elementary grades


3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?

After reading over certain main ideas and arguments shared by the two theorists, what it instantly made me think of was my own education here in High School. But not just the High School curriculum, my whole life time spent in school. Whether it be elementary school or midddle school or even High School, their beliefs make sense in any tutorial. Although, from what i read about both Hirsch and Sizer, was that the two mainly spent their time arguing over the traditional education in middle school and High School. It makes sense to dangle over the two because Middle school comes right before High School, and a student's freshman year always reflects upon the students education level and the school in which he received it. This can connect to my own life because my freshman year consisted of good grades, especially in Math. Except what we were learning there i already covered in my 8th grade class. The significance of that is because i went to a Catholic School in Manhattan up until 8th where i did not cover things such as this, but once i went to a public school for only one year i covered all the essential curriculum it seemed.

Sizer believed that a school's given education to be placed upon their students was chosen based on the test scores received, placing them in certain learning brackets. What was conclusive to me about their whole debate was that both were preaching about two separate matters. Hirsch saying, "Students should be able to read and know basic number facts by the end of the first grade", believed that whatever problems that lye were merely placed blamed onto early grade level's and their chosen curriculum. In my opinion, not all students can be reached the same progressively, especially when there must only be one curriculum and an outnumbered amount of students to the teacher. but i also do understand the worries that the two gentleman share for students and whether they are being "taught" by the teacher or by the curriculum she places in front of them.

Strog efforts for reaching out to students can only go so far. Especially when the discussion of certain topics approach. you can maybe drive over practiced curriculum and just go for it with students, when being taught English, but to look pass practiced curriculum with Math and assume students can catch up is just an impractical thought.