More Thoughts on School- Hw 45

Ted Sizer's Speech

Ted Sizer seems to have a very simplistic view on how schools should be, things should be done according to the people in school (students and teachers), and not as much by the book. The students and teachers should have the freedom to do what they need to to fit their roles, and the curriculum should be able to fit for the teacher and the student. The set up seems to be planned out there's no room for uncertainties, "How do I teach toward deep understanding-the application of knowledge to an unfamiliar situation- when the syllabus allows no time for plumbing the unfamiliar?" What I found interesting was that he also says the students and teachers should "Get the incentives right," that the teachers and students should want to be in school for the right reason. Essentially, according to Sizer, the main reason student's learn and go to school, is to learn to think and ask questions.

Hirsch's Article

Sizer has a imminent view on how schools should be, Hirsch has a transcendent view. Hirsch believes school curriculums should be aimed towards what the students will face in their lives such as literature (newspapers and books) and standardized tests (SATs), "Students who possess this knowledge are prepared to participate in civic life, move up career ladders, succeed in college, converse confidently with a wide variety of Americans with whom they work or socialize, and generally have the esteem that comes with being regarded as an educated person." Basically that in order to fit in with the American culture as an adult, there are things that one must be educated about, and they are educated about this in school with the curriculum provided.

1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?

Intellectually, they just have different ideas on what students should know. Sizer has a view which allows students to be on different levels of knowledge as long as there is progression in their development of thinking skills whereas Hirsch's view of a student's intellect should be based on the expectations of society. I believe that generally, in both views, the emotional state of the student would be similar, regardless of the curriculum there is still pressure from parents, peers, and society that should be accounted for. Hirsch's view of school seems to be more practical than Sizer's because Hirsch's goes along with society's view whereas Sizer's is a little more independent to that. Expectations of fitting the American culture is a norm that is difficult to avoid thus, Sizer's theory less practical. I think it would be very difficult for the two theories to be adapted to work together because they have different goals. Hirsch's goal is to get to the next level whereas Sizer's goal is to learn and improve.

2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?

I belive that Sizer's theory is resonant in my experience, School of the Future has a unique way of progressive learning with a different curriculum than most high schools. But recently, Hirsch's theory is becoming more resonant looking forward to college in the future. The competition between other schools that are more like Hirsch's theory are at a higher advantage because the students are easier to sort than students following Sizer's theory who are on different levels.

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

It makes me think about my own incentives for school. I belive it is kind of hard to put your own reasoning for being in school when most of it is decided for you at such a young age. In addition there is the incentive of the teacher that matters as well. If the teacher has a good reason to teach aside from the money and going through the motions, the student follows and has a good reason to learn as well. If the teacher in interested, it allows the student to be too.