2¢ Worth » Comments Ketchup… David Warlick shares some comments he’s heard recently…

Then I run across a comment that I was mostly impressed with. But the author, a network filter administrator, said,

When I go through the process of adding a new Universal Resource Locator (URL) to the filter database I actually personally evaluate the site to see which of the state standards can be illustrated or in any way taught by the content of the site. If I find that none can it is immediately blocked.

Hmm, part of me thinks, well that will make my job easier! Because, potentially, there would be no distracting Web sites for me to worry about students “wandering” to. But, other commenters bring up the problem with this which is, who is best set up to defined what meets the standard, and is knowledge limited to standards. Here is an example from my recent experience…I wanted to link students to this site by Krazy Dad which lets them make a kaleidoscope from pictures. This site is blocked at my district. Why? it’s probably because it’s seen as a “game” or frivolous. I wanted to use it for two things. It’s a nice visual break for students to do activities like that, sort of a palate cleanser, and it lacks enough depth to encourage students to spend hours on the activity. BUT, it is also tied into geometry standards, and some areas that regular teachers have specifically requested that I supplement because the text does not cover it well, symmetry and transformation. Someone likely thought they were ‘helping’ by blocking this, but it just keeps me from getting a great Into/Set for a lesson. As more and more time goes on, I’m coming to appreciate that individual classroom teachers need to have some control over filtering.

Interpreted literally, this reminds me of a comment made by a keynote speaker I recently saw at a state school boards association conference. It was a great keynote, funny, and thought provoking — in a good way. But the speaker said something that I, personally, do not agree with. >

If your second grade teacher teaches a fantastic unit on dinosaurs, but dinosaurs are not on the test, then that teacher is doing harm to your children. Anything that’s taught that’s not on the test, is doing harm to your children. >

Are the standards of instruction intended to be the extent of the instruction? The answer to that question may well be, “Yes.” But should the state define the limit of instruction? I don’t think so. Safety, I would suggest, should be the only limit to learning in our schools.

There is a point to this, but first I’ll talk about what is wrong. First, the speaker focuses on CONTENT, rather than thinking. Next, the logical conclusion of this thinking is sort of like the situation in 1984, where words are deleted from the lexicon. When have we ever been successful reducing knowledge?

OTOH, focus is not a bad thing and making sure that you are meeting some learning objective stops you from wasting your time in class. Before people get mad, let me give you an example. A testing consultant (who said other things I thought were bunk) gave a really nice example of how a project steeped in constructivism, can still really miss the mark. Many grade levels have projects that students complete (4th grade Missions, 5th grade state reports, etc.) One school in Fresno mummified something for their big project in ancient civilization. They worked long and hard on this project, but at the end, students had no idea what they were doing, and why they were doing it. When asked what is the objective, the response was “to preserve the animal”. They didn’t learn why mummification was important in Ancient Egyptian culture. Yes, it was a fun project, but they didn’t learn much of anything about their subject. My own experience with state reports is that there is a big focus on “factoids” rather than doing deeper thinking about geography, economy, etc.

Here is a nice piece from Linda Darling-Hammond at S.F. Gate…

High-quality standards, a curriculum based on critical thinking can enlighten e our students