Both Hirsh and Sizer make excellent points. Although I think that Sizer’s ideas on teaching are a better preparation for the real world, I do believe certain aspects of Hirsch’s ideas could be of some use. In some ways people of the School of the Future, and other schools part of the Coalition of Essential Schools have had a taste of both worlds. Although my elementary school wasn’t completely based on standardized testing generally speaking it was much more than SOF. Hirsch is about the content of learning and being able to understand it earlier on. While Sizer thinks a more portfolio-based education actually allows the mind to truly learn.
Hirsh wants to make people that follow the path and are easy to keep under control. His ideas are very similar to the Prussian Education System, making people good soldiers and good factory workers. His ideas lead us to becoming mimicking robots that are good at retaining information and spitting it right back.
Sizer believed that real learning happened not by testing but by thinking. Being able to use alternative options in understanding content. Our school is an example of one of his ideas coming to life. We have eliminated regents and substituted them with exhibitions. While most kids become excellent at bubbling in circles we are exploring the Habits of Mind, and their reflection on our learning and thinking.
In this NY Times Article from 1996 written by Sara Mosle it discusses the ideas that Hirsch was trying to preach. “Progressive educators like Mr. Sizer contend that ''national standards'' will simply lead to more standardized testing. Mr. Hirsch recognizes the limitations of many standardized tests, and offers suggestions for making them both more nuanced and more comprehensive. And he cautions against state governments' using such tests as a ''blunt legislative instrument'' to impose reform; they must also provide the resources necessary to make meeting such standards possible. But Mr. Hirsch maintains that such tests are far fairer than more subjective means of assessing student performance, such as ''portfolios'' -- compilations of students' creative work -- which are currently in vogue.” What I think is interesting that over 10 years later Hirsh’s vision isn’t so unreal, the whole “No Child Left Behind” seems to have elements of his message. The idea that an elementary standardized test is given to evaluate the child’s knowledge seems crazy.
I do not completely disagree with what Hirsch is saying but I think it could be tweaked slightly. I do think that it is important in early childhood development for children to be exposed to content in both math and science. If one child really seemed to grasp the information and understand it then maybe later on in life they will decide to pursue a career in it. I do not think though that this set curriculum should stay within an education the whole time. I also do not believe a test can measure the ability of ones knowledge. Certain skills though that are used in preparing for tests could be incorporated within a classroom. The ability to remember what you learned yesterday, and be able to know it so well you could teach someone else. But by at least High School is when the Sizer way should come into play. As Sizer said: “Inspiration, hunger: these are the qualities that drive good schools. The best we educational planners can do is to create the most likely conditions for them to flourish, and then get out of their way.” I think what he was trying to do was to make learning something exciting and what students looked forward to. While Hirsch didn’t think about the students ideas and more so his own. Sizer wanted to give students a blank canvas and let the imagination go, while Hirsch gave the students a coloring book.
No comments:
Post a Comment