Amro Hassan
Egypt: School Curricula Inciting Extremism to be Changed (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/04/egypt-ministry-to-modify-school-curriculums-inciting-extremism.html)
L.A. Times
April 27, 2010
Summary: Note that this article is from a year ago. Egypt's education minister has proposed changes to the curricula that would promote peace and understanding between Egypt's Christian and Muslim populations. Previously, some Muslim educators have sought to encourage confrontations between the groups.
Intended Audience: General Public
Key Points: 1) Religious courses are required in Egypt, both Christian and Muslim depending on beliefs; 2) The education minister wants to alter the curricula to encourage cooperation and understanding between groups (we saw some of this cooperation during the recent revolution).
Relevance: Education shapes society. The decisions that are made regarding what to teach and how to teach it has real life implications in society. This is an example of not so much changing what is taught (religious studies will still be taught), but how it is taught. I continue to ask myself about the political implications of what and how we teach in the United States--specifically in relation to my discipline (history, social studies).
Showing posts with label What are Schools For?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label What are Schools For?. Show all posts
Friday, February 25, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Role of Curriculum in the Nation's Schools (Jeff, Topic Six)
ABC Nightline
3/11/2010
Summary: An interview with an influential member of the Texas School board that imposed a number of controversial changes to the state's curriculum, including the attempted removal of Thomas Jefferson, a defense of Joseph McCarthy, and the marginalization of minority self-determination.
Intended Audience: Nightline is broadcast nationwide and aimed at the every-day average US citizen.
Key Points: 1) Texas implemented a number of controversial curriculum changes in 2010; 2) Gives a board member the chance to defend himself.
Relevance: First of all, I want to make it very clear that I am not posting this as an attempt to espouse any particular set of beliefs or ideologies. I will not publicly support either side in a forum such as this, and apologize that the embed is from an impartial source (one that I do not remotely support); it was, in fact, the only version able to be embedded. I have linked the original from ABC's website in the header.
I do, however, believe that this specific topic brings to light some of the more raw, dangerous and controversial aspects of education. Topics that should not be avoided at all costs, but that should be mulled over, ruminated upon, discussed and debated. After all, the most basic reason this particular topic is relevant is this: What are schools for? Thereby, what are our goals as educators?
Friday, February 4, 2011
How Much Freedom do Charter Schools Deserve? A Question of Indoctrination and Public Funding
Lisa Snell and Ralph E. Shaffer
"How Much Freedom do Charter Schools Deserve" (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-snell-shaffer10-2009jun10,0,1430469.story)
Los Angeles Times
June 10, 2009
Summary:This article is written in a point-counter point debate style, so I will divide my review into its respective sections:
Lisa Snell:
Snell argues that the concept behind charter schools is not based on any particular ideology. In fact, she points out, the focus of some charter schools is to avoid ideology altogether and to focus solely on academics. Instead, the point of charter schools, and their strength, is that they provide options to parents. Charter schools provide choices. She is also quick to point out that (in Oakland) charter school students are outperforming students in traditional schools in standardized testing.
Ralph E. Shaffer:
Shaffer is quick to point out the exceptions in the world of charter schools--schools that do in fact require students to adhere to specific doctrinal beliefs. While his writing style initially turned me off, he does close his argument with an intriguing thought: is public funding of schools that espouse specific ideologies unconstitutional?
Intended audience: Parents, General Public
Key Points: 1) Charter schools offer an important and enriching alternative to traditional schools; 2) Charter schools should be limited in their ability to procure public funding if they blatantly espouse particular social or economic ideologies.
Relevance: This was really a fascinating debate. I started on one end of the argument, shifted to the other, and settled somewhere in the middle. It is easy to forget the power that curriculum has over controlling the experience of education; what students learn can drastically alter the rest of their lives. It is also easy to forget that freedom of speech can sometimes be used as a hedge against authority while putting forth radical or even dangerous ideals. The article does a wonderful job of complicating the questions of control, structure, and the purpose of schools. It is particularly relevant to last nights class on the philosophy of teaching. Why do teachers teach what they teach how they teach it?
"How Much Freedom do Charter Schools Deserve" (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-snell-shaffer10-2009jun10,0,1430469.story)
Los Angeles Times
June 10, 2009
Summary:This article is written in a point-counter point debate style, so I will divide my review into its respective sections:
Lisa Snell:
Snell argues that the concept behind charter schools is not based on any particular ideology. In fact, she points out, the focus of some charter schools is to avoid ideology altogether and to focus solely on academics. Instead, the point of charter schools, and their strength, is that they provide options to parents. Charter schools provide choices. She is also quick to point out that (in Oakland) charter school students are outperforming students in traditional schools in standardized testing.
Ralph E. Shaffer:
Shaffer is quick to point out the exceptions in the world of charter schools--schools that do in fact require students to adhere to specific doctrinal beliefs. While his writing style initially turned me off, he does close his argument with an intriguing thought: is public funding of schools that espouse specific ideologies unconstitutional?
Intended audience: Parents, General Public
Key Points: 1) Charter schools offer an important and enriching alternative to traditional schools; 2) Charter schools should be limited in their ability to procure public funding if they blatantly espouse particular social or economic ideologies.
Relevance: This was really a fascinating debate. I started on one end of the argument, shifted to the other, and settled somewhere in the middle. It is easy to forget the power that curriculum has over controlling the experience of education; what students learn can drastically alter the rest of their lives. It is also easy to forget that freedom of speech can sometimes be used as a hedge against authority while putting forth radical or even dangerous ideals. The article does a wonderful job of complicating the questions of control, structure, and the purpose of schools. It is particularly relevant to last nights class on the philosophy of teaching. Why do teachers teach what they teach how they teach it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)