I admit it - to date I'm not a big fan of Senge and his colleagues. It is not that I disagree with them, it is just that in reading the book I find that it is a bit like gold mining - there is an occasional nugget (or insight) that is worthwhile in amongst all the words that are written. There is no consistent style in the book - at one stage, there is a folksy tale of some teacher or parent, and then at other stages, philosophical reflections on the nature of teaching and learning. The outlook of Senge and his colleagues on the world and on education seems to be idealistic rather than realistic. I think I would far prefer them to write how they were part of a learning community at a school and how they did this, and what were the challenges and experiences of teachers or administrators who were reluctant to become engaged with the process. I would be especially interested to know if their ideas are implemented in their own universities.
The reading selection begins with the story of the student and the medellion. To me, that highlights the need for relationships between teachers and students. This is sometimes easier with some students than others, but to me it is the heart of what teaching and learning is about. I was pleasantly surprised when the story concentrated on what the student learnt that day. In my conversations with past and present students, they are more likely to remember the way the teacher related to them and their passion for teaching and learning than particular points that were made in lessons.
I must admit I find U.S. curriculum patterns confusing at the best of times. I may be misreading the situation, but it seems to me that accrediting organisations such as WASC have a huge impact on the curriculum and its implementation, but that the accrediting organisations are not curriculum organisations in themselves. I'm not sure how detailed the guidelines set by WASC are for curriculum (and other areas of school life), but in listening to teachers in California schools, it seems that the WASC criteria are the standards on which curricula design and implementation are used. If that is indeed the case, what sort of interaction is there between the teachers of any particular school and the accrediting organisation? If curricula are to be substantially changed, is WASC the reason for implementation, or does WASC change because of the insights of the school learning community? Perhaps a discussion around this matter could let teachers and administrators know the extent to which their school can become a learning community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both fortunately and unfortunately, schools must be accredited in the United States. The good news is that there are standards for which all schools are held accountable, the bad news is that sometimes the standards and visits appear to be artificial. Within the last forty years in Catholic education, the majority of our schools (both elementary and secondary) surpassed our public school counterparts in academics, discipline (and sometimes even athletics). For the most part, our schools are the examples of fine institutions in any given area or city, so it always amazes me when it's time for accreditation and the flurry of anxiety that comes with that. In the US, most schools work on a 180 day school calendar. I think that many of our schools could teach for 150 days and still out shine our public school counterparts- but I am definitely biased!
ReplyDeleteI find interesting your evaluation of Senge's book. Somehow I like that it gives me a conceptual framework to think about school as part of a larger system. It seems to be a mine of ideas, but also I hope to find in it later on some tools that could be used in a practice. I would like to read more about schools that implemented Senge's ideas.
ReplyDeleteRegarding curriculum, I think in Hungary we are free to develop our own, but following some general guidelines defined by the government. Therefore, the Hungarian school system is pretty much open to pedagogical innovation. On other hand teachers are overworked and as a result little energy for innovation. Fortunately, in Catholic schools we are more supportive and community like that allows us in many cases to take advantage of good pedagogical tools.
when you mentioned that the relationship between the teacher and the students was important in learning, i was reminded of a priest telling us that, students would remember the smile in our face than the lesson we wanted to convey. Children are looking for belonginess and that is the first step in learning, when they feel secured, we motivate them to learn
ReplyDelete