On the other hand, Pub Ted Sizer thinks that students should be growing and learning from the values that teachers and parents give. Additionally, by being in the school with smart and devoted teachers, the students can succeed and to have the students grow up intellectually and think hard about important things. Though unlike Hirsch, Sizer thinks its much better if the structure is simple and flexible and the teachers are able to use their own ways to teach the students. I think Hirsch is more transcend and Sizer is more immanence about education.
I find both Sizer and Hirsch theories resonant in my own experience because the teachers in S.O.F. are trying to have the students think for themselves and develop/think harder on aspects but also we need to know the basic knowledge of things such as English writing/grammar, historical information, mathematics and science. In the Pub Ted Sizer Speech, the central "imperatives" that Sizer talks about is "the ways students use their minds... to provoke young people to grow up intellectually, to think hard and resourcefully and imaginatively about important things". I think social studies class, taught by Andy Synder is one of the teachers that connects with Sizer but also with Hirsch because I think he teaches us to think harder about life and society but he tells us background knowledge and learning "how to" skills. I find that subjects of English and History/Social studies categories are more of Sizer's theories because students have to think through about what the texts are saying and how it connects to the world. Although history and social studies subjects are are about knowing the basic background knowledge of "history" or what the curriculum said too.
I think Hirsch theory applies more to mathematics and science subjects because we need to learn the basic knowledge of the topics before we can go anywhere with it. We can think deeper about the problems but without the basic knowledge, we cannot figure it out and the teachers have to teach us the basic knowledge to get us going. It's both thinking deeper into the knowledge but the knowledge has to be known to think deeper. I think Sizer/S.O.F. did and did not let my mind to be intellectually alert but I am able to think about important aspects of my life and society. For mathematics and science, the knowledge is already there, and cannot really ask "why" when the basics are already glued to the table and can't be taken off. I think it has a lot to do with the students choices when its concern with Sizer's theory because if the students do not choose to do the work, then it is hard to make them work. But unless there are exceptionally good and smart teachers to get the students to do the work, then they can think deeper.
As for Hirsch theory, I think its more strict and follows similarly to China's curriculum where the students are giving problems after problems to learn about the topics and sometimes the teachers only say it once. I think its more of children's factories when I read about Hirsch because we just need to learn about the basics and the curriculum should be the same in all the countries, the national curriculum/standards (Doing Our Homework) .
Even though I said that Hirsch is transcend and Sizer is immanence, I find that they both have adaptations and they both are intertwine with one another because when I think about the curriculum that I have in school, it is a balance of both and both of them are focusing on having the children's mind to expand more.
No comments:
Post a Comment