I just returned from the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) conference. There were many wonderful and informative sessions and I learned a lot. From how much we are doing right where our career and technical (CTE) instruction is concerned to changes we can make to improve on what we are doing. I will write a report for my fellow colleagues and meet with the head of our CTE programs to follow up.
However, one thing that was very revealing for me was when Bill Daggett pointed out that his original intent when he coined the phrase 'relevance and rigor' has been reversed by the educational community to ‘rigor and relevance’. I must note that Bill Daggett has the order in 'rigor and relvance' which is contrary to his statements at the meeting.
I know it sounds trivial, but the order of these two words has huge implications on the curriculum and instruction for our students. If we focus on rigor first we get a focus on structure instead of instruction. We create students who know how to go to school and that does not necessarily translate into being prepared for the real world and the workplace.
If we focus on relevance first and rigor second we focus on instruction, de-emphasizing structure. Doing this will show students real world applications for the curriculum they are learning.
While this is anecdotal, it strikes me as funny that our current education system is a by- product of the industrial revolution. The bell system was designed to prepare students for shift changes and breaks at industrial plants. We are no longer preparing students for assembly line jobs and in this global economy the American strategy is to position our citizens to be innovators and managers for the workforce. I think it is time the educational community catches up.
Business is telling us that graduates from public schools do not know what to do when they don't know what to do. Common sense and problem solving has got to be at the forefront of instruction.
All of this being said CTE teachers do need to be more in touch with the academic world and academic language. They need to know that they can not operate the way they did in the 80’s and 90’s. CTE teachers need to be a part of helping students excel in reading, math, and science. They need to recognize that when a student is struggling in these areas there is no one better to make the lessons ‘relevant’.
8 comments:
CAUTION: If Bill Daggett is the same Willard Daggett that spoke to us at the Ice Palace, I'd consider pulling this post.
Google "Willard Daggett" - there is enough info to question walking across the street to hear him speak.
Suzie,
It is the same Daggett and I know that teachers are tired of hearing his rhetoric. I also know that teachers were not happy with that pep rally for a teacher a few years back, which is why we have not done that since.
My point is that the original intent of his philosophy and a very popular phrase that is over used has been totally twisted and misinterpreted.
If we are going to quote him then we need to understand what he really meant.
This misinterpretation makes me think of SpringBoard. It is cookie cutter. It is a hodge-podge. It is unproven. It is irrelevant. It aims at making every child in the entire county and every teacher in the entire county robots of sameness. Our kids will go to college as complete UNoriginal thinkers in the language arts: reading, thinking, writing, speaking, studying, etc. Over their years in 6th through 12th grade they will encounter the same lessons, the same approach, the same irrelevance, the same books, the same, the same, the same… If English teachers can’t teach original thinking, reasoning, and writing, then who will?
The sourest point is that it is an UNproven, mediocre curriculum that costs millions upon millions to implement. This goes against everything and anything that I learned in college in pursuing my degrees in education and English.
While I fully understand the importance of the order of words, I find it interesting that the first two websites I found:
ICLE - About Dr. Daggett
and
International Center for Leadership in Education
each repeatedly had the words in this order:
"rigor and relevance".
Other than that, I appreciate the opportunity to explore ideas of how our institution of public education can be properly changed to align it with our existing societal needs.
I would submit that in order to achieve this end, Education must be on the top of the pyramid that is supported by all of the various forces that exist with it, such as politics, business or personal gain. Unfortunately, I think Education is sabotaged by these other forces.
Special Ed,
I recognize that Bill Daggett himself has given in to the educators and is now using the words in the order that was not his intent. Based on online research I learned this before I made my posting. I am in the process of writing him a letter and reminding him of what I heard him say and challenging him to change the order of the words on all of his written and online material. He must not speak out of both sides of his mouth.
All I can say is ..."Whats the payoff" ?
9:05,
I don't understand your question. What are you getting at?
April Griffin
I used to joke that Daggett's ideas were neither relevant nor rigorous. In Dagget's pep rally speech he made fun of today's education by showing an old building and a chalk board and contrasting those with the modern presentation techniques. His point is that the old ways of doing things are not going to make us the leaders of the 21st century. It is not the content but the delivery that he faults. We simply cannot engage these children because they are just not hungry for knowledge. Why learn how to invent a cell phone when we already have one. What he is asking us to do is teach the kids how to think. Something the 19th and 20th century pedagogy did very well if we look at the educational experiences of Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, Feynman, Von Neuman, and Turing.
Post a Comment