It seems that their points of view are not as different. The education received in elementary school and High School is indeed different. Seen from this point of view, their opinions cannot be entirely compared.
Analyzing Sizer and Hirsch' work separately would help distinguish their opinions. Perhaps these can be compared when seen as a way to improve the school system. As a student I wonder: Who has the best idea and what has it been done?
Supposedly School of the Future adopted Sizer's work into their system, just like many other schools. Sizer's speech in 1997 truly inspired headmasters to follow his methods. Reading Sizer's five imperatives for better schools, and comparing them to my current school system, it merely shows how my own school considered Sizer's opinion as a ticket to become a better school.
These imperatives are:
1.Give room to teachers and students to work in their own, appropriate ways.
2.Insist that students clearly exhibit the mastery of their school work.
3.Get the incentives right, for students and for teachers.
4.Focus on the students' use of their minds.
5.Keep the structure simple and thus flexible.
As a student of SOF I can distinguish Sizer's structures on the school's exhibition requirements. We must work on our Habits of Mind and be able to represent these beautifully in paper and speech. The exhibition process helps us to develop our minds, to "leave school as well-informed skeptics, and able to ask good questions as a matter of habit." Instead of presenting exams, which might not contribute as well as the exhibition process according to our school, we work on using our mind in a specific way.
Sizer also encourages teachers to not forget their place. According to him, us, the students are always watching the teachers and following their way of thinking. Therefore, Sizer as a teacher himself said, "We must live what we teach because how we live teaches. We cannot escape being models." These strict methods Sizer proposes will lead schools, teachers and students to succeed in their goals. As previously mentioned, Sizer's methods, are transcendent. The most important aspect of a school should be only results. This being said, most schools I have seen and known of work with the same system. Does this mean Sizer is right? Or perhaps Hirsch's idea is too complicated to practice and therefore seen as ineffective. However, based on the first article by Anne C. Lewis discussed on this post, Hirsch's work also suggests a transcendent education. So why has School of the Future adopt Sizer's work over anyone Else's?
Based on Sizer's speech and relating it to what has been discussed in class. He mentions the importance of every one's positions within the system. The teachers, for example, must present a good image and remain on their altar separated from students, and in some cases even looking down on them. These role models, known as teachers, are the ones with the authority within the classroom. But even the teachers are under the higher authority of the school's principal becoming part of a bigger chain within the entire country. There is always a higher power above us. This solid system makes things work due to its simplicity. As students we do not have to think much of what should be done in school. It is clear that we are there to learn for the future. If we enjoy it or not is not important. There are not speeches telling how children should have fun in school. The idea of going to school and have fun while learning everyday sounds too unrealistic to me. The same way it sounded to Sizer. High School is a crucial preparement for our futures. It should not be taken lightly by teachers and students. Sizer proposed a solid structure that would help schools and there are no fun activities involved.
Hirsch, just as Sizer, also completed his education and proposed his work on school system to help improve it. The essay, "E. D. Hirsch’s Curriculum for Democracy" talks about Hirsch's live and preparement. It mainly focuses on his experience in school and with schools. He saw how grown students did not have enough education and knowledge. For example, in his work he "had cited an experiment that found that college students unable to comprehend a difficult passage about the Civil War by historian Bruce Catton were also likely not to have learned anything about the Civil War in the early grades." He believed that these problems originated since early school life. Therefore something had to be done. Hirsch’s next book, "The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them" shows the democracy of Hirsch. He wanted to take the educational quality to a whole new level. He proposed different ideas to help children learn, such as poetry. It did not have to be necessarily fun but definitely helpful.
Because of his work, many public schools have taught students to read trough the "whole language" method, which involves guessing the meaning of unknown words instead of using the dictionary.
Comparing this to my own school. I have seen Hirsch's ideas of teaching in most of my classes. Therefore I can tell that my school is actually a combination of two great educational ideas. And perhaps there could be more. Hirsch was indeed very optimistic about learning. He focused on encouraging the student even more than the teachers. As opposed to Sizer who assigned different roles and positions within the school.
However, as previously mentioned Hirsch work is also transcendent due to his purpose always consisted of helping children leave school with important knowledge that would help them in the future.
Hirsch and Sizer due to have similar points of view, but they focused on different areas of school which might have made them seem differently. In my opinion this is not a Hirsch Vs. Sizer situation. Both contributed to the current system in a way that actually made a difference until our current date. Their ideals might sound too strict or boring but unfortunately these work.
Students learn many things in school and they also learn how to think. This knowledge will be passed on to next generations and therefore make new discoveries. I do not blame nor judge them for not focusing more on the student's feelings. If they had done it, things would be completely different, and perhaps school would be actually fun. But would it work? Would I learn as much as I have learnt without it?
I don't think there is a way of knowing at this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment