-> SK>Stating what students should learn, in a national curriculum, and
-> then >holding them accountable for it by testing them on it...I just
-> don't see >the booby traps there. Could you please elaborate on it
-> without the >analogies?
-> Since I understand the analogies he offers I will give you an
-> opinion. Let say that a National Curriculum is put in place.  New
-> information comes to light which is not suitable to those who control
-> the curriculum content or more likely NEW Information is available
-> right after New text have been prepared.  In the first case the
-> powers that be simply surpress the information.  Corruption at is
-> finest.  In the second instance due to cost the information is not
-> made available.  IMO a powerful centralized curriculum is not unlike
-> any other monopoly.  It has definite benefits on the one hand and
-> possible terrible consequences on the other.
I'm sorry, but this is just a bit too "Big Brother" for me to buy.
Suppose there is "new information" coming to light. How are these
nebulous "controlling powers" going to suppress its disemination, short
of some sort of project requiring government security clearances??? In
today's world, information dissemination is rampant. We have all kinds
of agencies, companies, and organizations that spread news of new
discoveries and developments. Teachers would find out about these things
on their own and be free to include them in their classroom instruction
as they deemed appropriate (a good argument in favor of teacher
tenure!).
I'm having trouble imagining what these remarkable new developments
would be, but....in the interest of discussion I will assume it could
happen and offer the above scenario as an appropriate way of dealing
with it.
I think one problem in this discussion, is a misunderstanding amongst
all the participants of what a "National Curriculum" would be. You, Tom,
seem to be interpreting it as some sort of "limiting" list of topics,
where teachers would not be allowed to teach anything not on the
approved National Curriculum list? Given your proximity to Texas, I'm
not surprised, as I understand that is the way a great deal of
instruction in Texas operates. IMHO that is bad news, and I dont' think
most of the teachers here are interpreting it that way (Chuck, your
thoughts?). I believe the teachers see such a National Curriculum as a
minimal list of topics which teachers would be allowed to supplement and
add to as appropriate. I also believe that most discussions on a
National Curriculum that I have read, advocate a reasonable amount of
flexibility for local control. Again, the ability for teachers to
supplement and add to the list of topics, and hence, the "new
discoveries" that you fear being "supressed", is a very good argument
why teachers should have the protection of tenure.
-> While I would like to see higher standards and testing to ensure the
-> standards are met I am leery of anything with the National prefix.
-> This would especially be true if organizations like the NEA were to
-> be part of the controlling agency.
I don't think "control" is the idea of National Standards, and I highly
doubt that a union would be in the role of "controlling" content in
schools. The idea is a minimum standard which all localities would be
free to exceed.
BTW, having seen Dave's response, I don't think you are representing his
POV.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------