So as I sit down to ‘reflect’ I am realizing that I am analyzing everything I do and read. When I left class on Wednesday I was excited with where my mind had voyaged to. Contemplating why things are the way they are at school since then has got me quite excited and personal reflections have stretched beyond the average. Average reflections amongst teachers at my school generally focus on what is wrong, whose fault it is, how others could improve it and all this is said with a few expletives. Now I find myself going beyond the micro (why we are teaching this or how do you control Student A’s behaviour) and examining the larger scale systems and ideas. I don’t want it to sound like I am tooting my own horn, I just want you to know that only one class in I feel better already about the journey and how it has made me more aware of my view on various aspects in education.
The elements in education web that we constructed in class was not only eye-opening but raised a certain fear in me. You spoke of how difficult but prevalent educational reform is and it all makes sense when examining how complex of a system it is. So how does one make positive change? A person would have to design or form a new system that was accepted by all the stakeholders (or at least enough that could control the other participants) and then somehow find the resources and means to introduce it to the group. No wonder we are stuck in an archaic system that reflects not who we are as a society currently but one of previous generations. How do we change this and create a paradigm shift? The novel ideas are out there but we are still stuck in our current system.
Your point about ‘needing numbers to assess students’ and ultimately everything has intrigued me. I don’t use numbers in my assessment of students work (save the use of the 5/3/1 scale in the 6+1 Writing Traits rubric and I know it is strictly ordinal) and it has transformed my assessment and my students approach to work. How anyone could look at an essay and arbitrarily say “it is an 86% or 87%” is ridiculous. From not yet meeting expectations to exceeding expectations is where I want my students to travel. But....why then must a final percentage be added to the report card? Is it because it is always the way it has been done? Is our reporting system falling behind our assessment system? Do we provide numbers for the students or the parents because that is waht they know and recognize? I have had long discussions with parents on why I don’t have a number next to their child’s name. Does it reflect the need for the ministry (or Fraser Institute) to assess and rank school’s performance? Or does it merely reflect the need of post-secondary institutions to screen their applicants? Are we as teachers quantifying all our learning objectives for 12 years so that a university can easily choose which applicant is likely to succeed without ever meeting them in person? I started to wonder if this is all the fault of Frederick Taylor. Taylorism is one of the only things that stuck in my head from an early economics course and I find myself analyzing everything to see how I can do it more effectively. So are the universities just trimming costs and time by screening applicants in this way? On a side note, I have seen a number of people asked to leave or removed from the STEP program during their practicum in the past years because they were not suited to the profession. However, many other student-teachers could have predicted based on their social skills, organizational skills, or work ethic. Should there be a one on one interview prior to acceptance? Has society gone too far in saving money? Do economic resources have a larger weight in the educational system web than other factors? I compare it to the game Kerplunk in that many straws (systems) can be taken out and the marbles (students education) still remain but eventually one straw is removed and the system collapses. Perhaps a complete overhaul is needed to permit education to transform into a system built for the 21st century (pardon my use of this cliché).
The topic of 21st century skills is prevalent in our school these days. Our principal was on the ‘One District – One Vision – One Goal’ committee to design the attributes of a School District No. 23 Learner for Success in the 21st and we are working hard to apply or include these 5 outcomes or objectives to our curriculum. The document (which surprisingly is not available anywhere on the School district website so I will bring you a copy) lists the attributes (Learner, Thinker, Innovator, Collaborator, Contributor) that a student should possess to succeed in our current society. Most are behavioural objectives that certainly would make specific criterion levels difficult. It definitely puts the emphasis back on the students though. Throughout the readings I see a wide spectrum of who is the focus in our quest for achieving the ‘goal of education’. Students? Teachers? A happy midpoint? Is it the students who control their progression and teachers are mere pawns to distribute resources or are students the raw materials with that are created by teachers and school boards? Bobbitt and his followers seem to argue that most change can be done top-down by systems and leave little room for the role of the student. Whereas, Ebel writes that, “learning is a personal activity which each student must carry on for himself.” It reminds me of my previous career in the wine industry. There were two distinct views on producing a great product. Great wine was either the result great grapes from great soil, climate and growing conditions – the terroir – or it was the result of a great winemaker who could turn any grape to greatness by controlling the fermentation process, aging, and oak influences. So what makes a great education? What roles do students, teachers and systems play in the process?
I understand my bias or lens views the system differently due to my role as a teacher but is broadened now by my concurrent role as a student and my very near future as my role as a parent. My realities are that teachers are an important variable and that every student is very different (from each other, not just different ;) and we must acknowledge this fact when teaching them. Ebel stated that “individual learning is greatly facilitated by group instruction” and I struggled with this statement. Is it greatly facilitated because a 1:1 teacher student ratio is impossible due to Taylorism or is he missing the importance of differentiated or individual instruction? Who says 30 students is a proper number for instruction? Is it determined by the overhead costs or what is best for the average students learning? Reading through The Third Teacher I saw no benefit of having large class sizes. Do we have the necessary resources to facilitate our curriculum? To this I question our use of technology.
I was my school’s technology lead teacher and was often approached by teachers who wanted to use a new software or technology in their classroom just for the sake of using it. I would ask them what their end goal was and how this new resource would aid in achieving it. There was frequently no answer as they just wanted to use it. This is reinforced by Robert Mager when he states that when clearly defined goals are not available, teachers can get lost in their instruction and resources. We need to start with the end in mind and work backwards.
At the end of it, I am still struggling with how change can be effectively implemented in our school system. Is this system so large and complex that drastic change is impossible? I believe I sit with many others in the waiting room for educational reform.
References
Despres, Blane R. (2003). Family of Related Systemic Elements (FoRSE) Matrix.
Ebel, Robert L. (1972). What are schools for? Phi Delta Kappan, 54, 1, p 3-7.
Eisner, Elliot W. (1985). The Educational Imagination on the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
How do BC schools compare? Retrieved September 18, 2011, from Fraser Institute Web site: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/report-cards/school-performance/british-columbia.aspx
Kerplunk (game). Retrieved September 18, 2011 from the Wikipedia website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KerPlunk_(game)
79 ideas for using design to transform teaching and learning. Retrieved September 18, 2011 from The Third Teacher website: http://www.thethirdteacher.com/
Monday, October 24, 2011
To what extent, do teachers choose the curriculum?
Introduction
This week as we pondered what exactly curriculum is and how it has developed or evolved in the past century, I am intrigued by who really sets the present curriculum. For this reflection, I will use Doll’s definition of curriculum which states it is the “formal and informal content and process by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills and alter attitudes, appreciations and values under the auspices of that school.” We know that the Ministry of Education sets the curriculum as they state the following: The prescribed learning outcomes set the learning standards for the provincial K to 12 education system and form the prescribed curriculum for British Columbia. They are statements of what students are expected to know and do at the end of an indicated grade or course.
Schools have the responsibility to ensure that all prescribed learning outcomes in each IRP are met; however, schools have flexibility in determining how delivery of the prescribed learning outcomes can best take place. It is expected that student achievement will vary in relation to the prescribed learning outcomes. Evaluation, reporting, and student placement with respect to these outcomes are dependent on the professional judgment and experience of teachers, guided by provincial policy. (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php)
This raises two questions, one being who provides input (both directly and indirectly) to the ministry and secondly, how much autonomy do teachers really have? Due to the time constraints of contacting the government and going through the bureaucratic red tape especially during job action, I have elected to pursue an answer to my second question. So how much of our curriculum is dictated by individual teachers? The sub-question of whether this is good thing will be left for you to decide. To provide adequate research I decided to use an upcoming department collaboration time to assess the learning that goes on at my school.
Part 1: Predictions
Note: I am writing this paper in two separate sittings as in between I am involved in two interesting exercises during our school’s implementation day. The first exercise involves me and another curriculum leader guiding our department in planning a scope and sequence for grades 7-9 in English, English Writing, Social Studies and Social justice. Our end goal is to have courses based on ‘big ideas’ rather that the content driven nature of the Integrated Resource Packages. The students will still be expected to demonstrate all the prescribed learning outcomes but in a form that involves more inquiry based learning across the entire Humanities spectrum. This would be considered more Transaction than Transmission if you were following Miller and Seller. Now I state that I am writing this in a different organization format (pre and post implementation day) as I want to test my hypothesis of how closely teachers at my school follow the PLO’s. With no disrespect intended, I believe that many of the staff, when posed with the task of putting a finger on the big picture, will still be stuck in the regular ‘old school’ (pardon the pun) way of chunking the content and planning the year along the borders of the textbook.
The second task involves the same teachers to brainstorm a final summative project for the humanities area that assesses a different curriculum: Gardner’s Six Facets and the SD No. 23 Attributes of a Learner – a higher level skills assessment that would make Bloom happy. In this case we will need to think outside of the box or more ‘Steve Jobsesque’ if I may. Will it be similar to past summative assessments and resemble our final exams which we have eliminated this year? Will it include a larger framework? I find myself looking at the FoRSE matrix and wondering how broad a spectrum the teachers will cover in thinking about this new aspect of our schools curriculum. What values will come across? Will the students be engaged?
Part 2: The Aftermath
I know this carried the same suspense as revealing a winner on a reality TV show but the wait is over. When faced with the task of going over the curriculum as a group, it was easy to see who were covering the content and who were looking at the deeper understandings. For example, breaking down the Social Studies 9 curriculum and basing it on one idea – Revolution – shows that teachers could get away from the standard content. There were also some quiet, blank look teachers who were happy to see the courses summarized into simple ideas that they still felt comfortable teaching. Going back to how the Ministry states that the school has flexibility over how the IRPs are met and that teachers have control over the assessment and evaluation of the PLOs, I did determine that although our school is now on the same page, we haven’t been for years and teachers still have a large amount of control over the what and how of the curriculum. It would appear to me that the variation of what is going on in one classroom or school to the next is immense. No one ever visits my classroom to see if I am teaching certain things or more importantly, if the students are learning those things. There are no provincial exams to monitor learning in middle school and standardized tests may not be the um...er...most ‘authentic’ assessment of learning. We are professionals and I assume then that trust put into teachers is enough for all involved in the education process to sleep at night.
The second task of building a new ‘presentation of learning’ as it has been termed at my school had mixed results. I guess saying ‘think outside the box’ needed clarification as one teacher spent time finding the picture on the right and showing the rest of the group. Our group had difficulty with how students could demonstrate the deeper understandings and 21st century skills in a presentation. Some were suggesting that rolling a dice in a mock-civilization activity could dictate their grade while others couldn’t get away from current practices of multiple choice tests based on information rather than learning. One group did start to expand the purpose to include the community and the form/design included original ideas. This is our first year where we have decided as a staff to eliminate our usual final exams in the last week of the school year and create a new assessment of learning so I suppose I knew this would be a difficult task especially when my eyes have been opened so much to curriculum issues since starting this masters course.
Conclusion:
Teachers do have significant autonomy over both what and how they teach students. This is crucial if we want to continue to improve the educational system. Beyer and Apple state that ‘meaningful curriculum reform must occur within those institutions, and by those people, most intimately connected to the lives of students: teachers, administrators...’ and I agree that educational professionals are in the best position to know what the students need to succeed. Teachers need autonomy to truly cater to certain students needs. In a world that is constantly becoming more regulated and where life is becoming more dictated, teaching is one area that needs to stay open to individuals making choices and decisions. However, this can make things difficult for some involved as accepting variation when choosing teachers or schools for their children can be stressful. People don’t accept chance when it comes to education. Will you get the teacher who is eager, knowledgeable, fair, interesting, patient, dedicated and engaging or will you get the teacher who is just getting a paycheque? Will both of those teachers ensure that the Ministry curriculum is met? Will both of those teachers meet the values of society that Beyer and Apple speak of?
Field trips or videos, technology or chalkboards, discussions or solo work or collaborative learning, experiments and hands on or textbooks, assignments or tests – there are so many teacher variables. I know in my school that there are teachers that I would prefer my child to learn from. However, it is a preference and we are entitled to our thoughts. If there was a teacher that did not meet the requirements of the Ministry, I would not want them teaching and I fear that they still would be. Can we authentically measure the informal content of curriculum? Does the Ministry have requirements on the hidden aspect of curriculum? Does the formal outweigh the informal content if the Ministry can’t adequately prescribe its content?
Teachers do have autonomy and I stand by that whether this is appropriate or not is a personal choice. So, what do you think?
Resources
Beyer, Landon E. & Apple, Michael W. (1988). The Curriculum: Problems, Politics & Probabilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php.%20%20%20Oct.%2010, 2011.
Cookson, P. W., & Schneider, B. (1995). Transforming schools. New York: Garland.
Doll, R. C. (1989). Curriculum Improvement: Decision Making & Process, 7th Ed. Boston, MA: allyn and Bacon.
Miller, J.P. & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives & Practice. Toronto : Copp Clark Pitman.
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php
This week as we pondered what exactly curriculum is and how it has developed or evolved in the past century, I am intrigued by who really sets the present curriculum. For this reflection, I will use Doll’s definition of curriculum which states it is the “formal and informal content and process by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills and alter attitudes, appreciations and values under the auspices of that school.” We know that the Ministry of Education sets the curriculum as they state the following: The prescribed learning outcomes set the learning standards for the provincial K to 12 education system and form the prescribed curriculum for British Columbia. They are statements of what students are expected to know and do at the end of an indicated grade or course.
Schools have the responsibility to ensure that all prescribed learning outcomes in each IRP are met; however, schools have flexibility in determining how delivery of the prescribed learning outcomes can best take place. It is expected that student achievement will vary in relation to the prescribed learning outcomes. Evaluation, reporting, and student placement with respect to these outcomes are dependent on the professional judgment and experience of teachers, guided by provincial policy. (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php)
This raises two questions, one being who provides input (both directly and indirectly) to the ministry and secondly, how much autonomy do teachers really have? Due to the time constraints of contacting the government and going through the bureaucratic red tape especially during job action, I have elected to pursue an answer to my second question. So how much of our curriculum is dictated by individual teachers? The sub-question of whether this is good thing will be left for you to decide. To provide adequate research I decided to use an upcoming department collaboration time to assess the learning that goes on at my school.
Part 1: Predictions
Note: I am writing this paper in two separate sittings as in between I am involved in two interesting exercises during our school’s implementation day. The first exercise involves me and another curriculum leader guiding our department in planning a scope and sequence for grades 7-9 in English, English Writing, Social Studies and Social justice. Our end goal is to have courses based on ‘big ideas’ rather that the content driven nature of the Integrated Resource Packages. The students will still be expected to demonstrate all the prescribed learning outcomes but in a form that involves more inquiry based learning across the entire Humanities spectrum. This would be considered more Transaction than Transmission if you were following Miller and Seller. Now I state that I am writing this in a different organization format (pre and post implementation day) as I want to test my hypothesis of how closely teachers at my school follow the PLO’s. With no disrespect intended, I believe that many of the staff, when posed with the task of putting a finger on the big picture, will still be stuck in the regular ‘old school’ (pardon the pun) way of chunking the content and planning the year along the borders of the textbook.
The second task involves the same teachers to brainstorm a final summative project for the humanities area that assesses a different curriculum: Gardner’s Six Facets and the SD No. 23 Attributes of a Learner – a higher level skills assessment that would make Bloom happy. In this case we will need to think outside of the box or more ‘Steve Jobsesque’ if I may. Will it be similar to past summative assessments and resemble our final exams which we have eliminated this year? Will it include a larger framework? I find myself looking at the FoRSE matrix and wondering how broad a spectrum the teachers will cover in thinking about this new aspect of our schools curriculum. What values will come across? Will the students be engaged?
Part 2: The Aftermath
I know this carried the same suspense as revealing a winner on a reality TV show but the wait is over. When faced with the task of going over the curriculum as a group, it was easy to see who were covering the content and who were looking at the deeper understandings. For example, breaking down the Social Studies 9 curriculum and basing it on one idea – Revolution – shows that teachers could get away from the standard content. There were also some quiet, blank look teachers who were happy to see the courses summarized into simple ideas that they still felt comfortable teaching. Going back to how the Ministry states that the school has flexibility over how the IRPs are met and that teachers have control over the assessment and evaluation of the PLOs, I did determine that although our school is now on the same page, we haven’t been for years and teachers still have a large amount of control over the what and how of the curriculum. It would appear to me that the variation of what is going on in one classroom or school to the next is immense. No one ever visits my classroom to see if I am teaching certain things or more importantly, if the students are learning those things. There are no provincial exams to monitor learning in middle school and standardized tests may not be the um...er...most ‘authentic’ assessment of learning. We are professionals and I assume then that trust put into teachers is enough for all involved in the education process to sleep at night.
The second task of building a new ‘presentation of learning’ as it has been termed at my school had mixed results. I guess saying ‘think outside the box’ needed clarification as one teacher spent time finding the picture on the right and showing the rest of the group. Our group had difficulty with how students could demonstrate the deeper understandings and 21st century skills in a presentation. Some were suggesting that rolling a dice in a mock-civilization activity could dictate their grade while others couldn’t get away from current practices of multiple choice tests based on information rather than learning. One group did start to expand the purpose to include the community and the form/design included original ideas. This is our first year where we have decided as a staff to eliminate our usual final exams in the last week of the school year and create a new assessment of learning so I suppose I knew this would be a difficult task especially when my eyes have been opened so much to curriculum issues since starting this masters course.
Conclusion:
Teachers do have significant autonomy over both what and how they teach students. This is crucial if we want to continue to improve the educational system. Beyer and Apple state that ‘meaningful curriculum reform must occur within those institutions, and by those people, most intimately connected to the lives of students: teachers, administrators...’ and I agree that educational professionals are in the best position to know what the students need to succeed. Teachers need autonomy to truly cater to certain students needs. In a world that is constantly becoming more regulated and where life is becoming more dictated, teaching is one area that needs to stay open to individuals making choices and decisions. However, this can make things difficult for some involved as accepting variation when choosing teachers or schools for their children can be stressful. People don’t accept chance when it comes to education. Will you get the teacher who is eager, knowledgeable, fair, interesting, patient, dedicated and engaging or will you get the teacher who is just getting a paycheque? Will both of those teachers ensure that the Ministry curriculum is met? Will both of those teachers meet the values of society that Beyer and Apple speak of?
Field trips or videos, technology or chalkboards, discussions or solo work or collaborative learning, experiments and hands on or textbooks, assignments or tests – there are so many teacher variables. I know in my school that there are teachers that I would prefer my child to learn from. However, it is a preference and we are entitled to our thoughts. If there was a teacher that did not meet the requirements of the Ministry, I would not want them teaching and I fear that they still would be. Can we authentically measure the informal content of curriculum? Does the Ministry have requirements on the hidden aspect of curriculum? Does the formal outweigh the informal content if the Ministry can’t adequately prescribe its content?
Teachers do have autonomy and I stand by that whether this is appropriate or not is a personal choice. So, what do you think?
Resources
Beyer, Landon E. & Apple, Michael W. (1988). The Curriculum: Problems, Politics & Probabilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php.%20%20%20Oct.%2010, 2011.
Cookson, P. W., & Schneider, B. (1995). Transforming schools. New York: Garland.
Doll, R. C. (1989). Curriculum Improvement: Decision Making & Process, 7th Ed. Boston, MA: allyn and Bacon.
Miller, J.P. & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives & Practice. Toronto : Copp Clark Pitman.
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/plo.php
Catch of the Day
Yes- two fish comparisons in one week. This week, since Doll brought up the Metaphor and Narrative Mode, I thought I would try my own metaphor to “help us see what we don’t see” and see if this open, dialogue-engendering method helps me live or experience the curriculum theory to a higher degree (Doll, 1993,p. 169).
I believe it was Confucious who stated “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This would seem simple then. Just teach a man to fish and his family eats - no problem there. Except that it goes deeper than a simple skill. Whenever it comes to learning, there are various curriculum theories with endless questions. Do we want the fisherman to catch salmon or trout or bass? Do we want them to use technology like fish-finders and fancy boats? Should they fish on their own or should it be a collaborative process in which they ‘discover’ fish together with some buddies? What about the infrastructure concerns? Does the government let you fish in this particular body of water at this particular time of year with this particular lure? Can you even afford the fishing license? Is catching fish even ethical? Above all, do we really need to fish? Who says that there aren’t better protein food sources out there? What do the fish think?
I realize that any fishermen reading this metaphor would like to gaff or drown me for just turning fishing into an undesirable and stressful endeavour. I apologize as perhaps many things in life don’t need to be broken down using a systemic cluster matrix. So why does curriculum need to be analysed in such detail? How do I know if a certain theory is right for me? So in true curriculum theorizing fashion, I am going to dive in and break down each aspect of education and how it relates to fishing to help explain the entire process.
Catching a fish is like achieving your goals in education. You set out with a purpose, objective or outcome and hope that you can achieve it. (Obviously, the word hope does not exist in the vocabulary of most involved in the education process. No teacher, parent or administrator hopes that the kids will learn. This isn’t Vegas. Chance has no place in education.) If you catch a fish or if you learn something, you succeed. In fishing, you can set the goals. You can choose whether you are going to catch your limit of fish or hope for a single fish or merely enjoy the breathtaking views as you drift on a tranquil mountain lake. Either way, there is a goal that you set out to do. Establishing your objectives in education are the same. Eisner describes objectives as, “the specific goals that one hopes to achieve through the educational program that is provided” and should be in performance terms (1985, p.109). For example, the fishermen will catch a fish. It is easy to measure and doesn’t have any interpretation problems. Notice I didn’t write that the fishermen will appreciate the art of fishing as that would be hard to assess meeting that objective.
Let us begin our fishing trip with the fisherman as it is at the centre of the entire process. In the education process, this would be the student as without them, there is little use for boats and road and hooks. The student is immersed in the process as reading about fishing in a book is merely transmission based. Fishing is a true transaction piece where the student needs to be capable of intelligent problem-solving and reconstructing knowledge in a stimulating intellectual environment (Miller & Seller, 1990, p. 6-7). Fishing is best experienced by the student.
Of course, very few fish are caught without supplies. Our body is not equipped (or fast enough) to catch fish with our bare hands so we require considerable funding. This is comparable to the government, ministry, district, or school influences on the educational process. Some schools are funded to the point where they have one-to-one laptops, endless resources, adequate staffing, etc. that aid the student in meeting their goals. Does a spacious boat with a smooth, quiet motor, extra fishing rods and top of the line gear mean a more prosperous fishing trip? Not necessarily but I don’t think I need to get into a comparison between the rich and poor schools to show you that it doesn’t hurt. Even the governments choice as to where and when you can fish and with what supplies can be compared to their own choices of where students go to school and when it is in session. They dictate the hours of instruction just like how you can’t fish from dusk until dawn. So why does the government have the say in what gets caught? Same reason that they control the schooling, they are looking out for society’s best interest. Overfishing would have disastrous effects on local economies just like having a weak educational system could. We as citizens rely on the government to make the sensible, intelligent, holistic and right choice when it comes to managing our children and our fish. Of course, as I write that I am reminded of some fish humour that contradicts that statement. What did the fish say when it swam into a wall? Dam!
Curriculum varies so much that I believe it is like guiding the hook to the right place in the water to find a fish. Everybody has their secret fishing spot that they go to time and time again because they once had success there. Goodson points out that there is a wide variety of curriculum theories and that no one is considered the ultimate or ideal. It is a personal thing.
Furthermore, he states that, “the link between theory and policy is seldom perfect or direct,” so even if we are fishing in the perfect spot it doesn’t mean we will catch anything (Goodson, 1994, p. 26). There can be hypotheses as to what will work but the intended consequence isn’t always met.
Everyone also has their favourite depth. I always troll at distinct depths like 23 feet, 32, 44, etc. as I don’t think that fish congregate at set depths. We are all entitled to our opinion though, even unsuccessful fishermen. Wirth, who argues that schooling follows a technocratic ideology or systems analysis techniques, states that there is an intention to conceive a science of education analogous to the science of mechanical production (Goodson, 1994, p. 27). Following his model, there must be some sort of formula to calculate the relation between salmonid swimming speed, underwater currents, H20 temperatures, and recessive genes in the fish species based on the parents mating grounds. Can we really apply this Taylorismesque mentality to something as varied as human subjects? Students are so dynamic and individualistic that we cannot simplify everything. In fishing, there is no set depth that fish swim at and there certainly isn’t a set speed. Maybe this is why there are fishermen who get skunked and why educational reform will never die.
Even when you are at the right speed, depth and location and the hook is right in front of the fish’s mouth, it may not bite. WHAT! Like fishing, you can have everything set up perfectly and the student doesn’t learn. Was it not engaging enough? Was their prior knowledge not scaffolded properly? Was it a full moon for fish or Halloween day for children (or even worse – the day after) that somehow blocked the learning? In several readings, I have repeatedly found the tendency to omit the importance of the learner in the process. The behavioural aspect of learning needs to be considered and we should recognize that even when everything is in order, learning may not take place.
One aspect of the process that can’t be overlooked is the fishermen’s friend. No I am not talking about the throat lozenge but rather the role of the teacher in the whole process. The fishermen who just read a book and self-teach themselves can expect to run into some problems. Fishing is more apprentice and master based and I can say that my apprentice was my father and I couldn’t have learned what I did without him. A great friend in the boat will assist the fishermen and not take over. “As teachers we cannot, do not, transmit information directly rather, we perform the teaching act when we help others negotiate passages between their constructs and ours, between ours and others” (Doll, 1993, p.180). For this I believe, a student has not learned until they have experienced the rush of catching a fish. The teacher is the guide on the side which by no coincidence is similar to the fishing guide. Leading the student to the fishing spot and providing feedback on lure choice and how to cast or reel in. The teacher should not be overlooked in the process and has a considerable impact on the learning that takes place.
What fishing trip is complete without assessment or evaluation? Is there a test? No and yes. If you don’t catch anything, you have failed (but you had a beautiful ride in a boat). Every fisherman knows that they will be assessed on the quality or quantity of their fishing trip. How many fish? How big were the fish? Two important questions that often lead to less than truthful answers, I know. One time I caught this massive fish that fought like crazy and pulled my boat around but it got away. But the size of the fish is the motivation for every student. The quest for the big one. Luckily, we can measure a fish whereas measuring learning or curriculum theories is more difficult. There may not be a right way. Everyone has their theory and it is just that – theirs. Can we measure that? We do measure learning and I will direct you to my other post on the blog that deals with the idea. I will mention that there is a distinct ranking amongst fishermen and many will exaggerate the size of their catch to move up those rankings.
In conclusion, I am reminded of another quote that says, “a bad day fishing is still better than a good day at school.” Or something like that although to me it is wrong. A bad day fishing equals not meeting your goals or objectives and to me this is not acceptable. In education, failure can’t be an option. This is why we strive so hard to change and improve our curriculum. Theorist after theorist have studied the process and attempted to find any problems and then correct them just like every fisherman reflects on his day and aims to do better next time. In both cases, mastering the process is virtually impossible due to the individualistic nature of the beast. We cannot predict the multitude of variables in either case but at the end of the day, we must focus on the success of the learner throughout the process and just enjoy the fish for dinner.
oicture courtesy of: http://www.bigfishtackle.com/photos/data/509/2-97.jpg
References:
Doll, William E. Jr. (1993). A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, Elliot W. (1985). The Educational Imagination on the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Goodson, Ivor F. (1994). Studying Curriculum: Cases and Methods. Toronto: OISE.
Miller, J.P. & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives & Practice. Toronto : Copp Clark Pitman.
I believe it was Confucious who stated “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This would seem simple then. Just teach a man to fish and his family eats - no problem there. Except that it goes deeper than a simple skill. Whenever it comes to learning, there are various curriculum theories with endless questions. Do we want the fisherman to catch salmon or trout or bass? Do we want them to use technology like fish-finders and fancy boats? Should they fish on their own or should it be a collaborative process in which they ‘discover’ fish together with some buddies? What about the infrastructure concerns? Does the government let you fish in this particular body of water at this particular time of year with this particular lure? Can you even afford the fishing license? Is catching fish even ethical? Above all, do we really need to fish? Who says that there aren’t better protein food sources out there? What do the fish think?
I realize that any fishermen reading this metaphor would like to gaff or drown me for just turning fishing into an undesirable and stressful endeavour. I apologize as perhaps many things in life don’t need to be broken down using a systemic cluster matrix. So why does curriculum need to be analysed in such detail? How do I know if a certain theory is right for me? So in true curriculum theorizing fashion, I am going to dive in and break down each aspect of education and how it relates to fishing to help explain the entire process.
Catching a fish is like achieving your goals in education. You set out with a purpose, objective or outcome and hope that you can achieve it. (Obviously, the word hope does not exist in the vocabulary of most involved in the education process. No teacher, parent or administrator hopes that the kids will learn. This isn’t Vegas. Chance has no place in education.) If you catch a fish or if you learn something, you succeed. In fishing, you can set the goals. You can choose whether you are going to catch your limit of fish or hope for a single fish or merely enjoy the breathtaking views as you drift on a tranquil mountain lake. Either way, there is a goal that you set out to do. Establishing your objectives in education are the same. Eisner describes objectives as, “the specific goals that one hopes to achieve through the educational program that is provided” and should be in performance terms (1985, p.109). For example, the fishermen will catch a fish. It is easy to measure and doesn’t have any interpretation problems. Notice I didn’t write that the fishermen will appreciate the art of fishing as that would be hard to assess meeting that objective.
Let us begin our fishing trip with the fisherman as it is at the centre of the entire process. In the education process, this would be the student as without them, there is little use for boats and road and hooks. The student is immersed in the process as reading about fishing in a book is merely transmission based. Fishing is a true transaction piece where the student needs to be capable of intelligent problem-solving and reconstructing knowledge in a stimulating intellectual environment (Miller & Seller, 1990, p. 6-7). Fishing is best experienced by the student.
Of course, very few fish are caught without supplies. Our body is not equipped (or fast enough) to catch fish with our bare hands so we require considerable funding. This is comparable to the government, ministry, district, or school influences on the educational process. Some schools are funded to the point where they have one-to-one laptops, endless resources, adequate staffing, etc. that aid the student in meeting their goals. Does a spacious boat with a smooth, quiet motor, extra fishing rods and top of the line gear mean a more prosperous fishing trip? Not necessarily but I don’t think I need to get into a comparison between the rich and poor schools to show you that it doesn’t hurt. Even the governments choice as to where and when you can fish and with what supplies can be compared to their own choices of where students go to school and when it is in session. They dictate the hours of instruction just like how you can’t fish from dusk until dawn. So why does the government have the say in what gets caught? Same reason that they control the schooling, they are looking out for society’s best interest. Overfishing would have disastrous effects on local economies just like having a weak educational system could. We as citizens rely on the government to make the sensible, intelligent, holistic and right choice when it comes to managing our children and our fish. Of course, as I write that I am reminded of some fish humour that contradicts that statement. What did the fish say when it swam into a wall? Dam!
Curriculum varies so much that I believe it is like guiding the hook to the right place in the water to find a fish. Everybody has their secret fishing spot that they go to time and time again because they once had success there. Goodson points out that there is a wide variety of curriculum theories and that no one is considered the ultimate or ideal. It is a personal thing.
Furthermore, he states that, “the link between theory and policy is seldom perfect or direct,” so even if we are fishing in the perfect spot it doesn’t mean we will catch anything (Goodson, 1994, p. 26). There can be hypotheses as to what will work but the intended consequence isn’t always met.
Everyone also has their favourite depth. I always troll at distinct depths like 23 feet, 32, 44, etc. as I don’t think that fish congregate at set depths. We are all entitled to our opinion though, even unsuccessful fishermen. Wirth, who argues that schooling follows a technocratic ideology or systems analysis techniques, states that there is an intention to conceive a science of education analogous to the science of mechanical production (Goodson, 1994, p. 27). Following his model, there must be some sort of formula to calculate the relation between salmonid swimming speed, underwater currents, H20 temperatures, and recessive genes in the fish species based on the parents mating grounds. Can we really apply this Taylorismesque mentality to something as varied as human subjects? Students are so dynamic and individualistic that we cannot simplify everything. In fishing, there is no set depth that fish swim at and there certainly isn’t a set speed. Maybe this is why there are fishermen who get skunked and why educational reform will never die.
Even when you are at the right speed, depth and location and the hook is right in front of the fish’s mouth, it may not bite. WHAT! Like fishing, you can have everything set up perfectly and the student doesn’t learn. Was it not engaging enough? Was their prior knowledge not scaffolded properly? Was it a full moon for fish or Halloween day for children (or even worse – the day after) that somehow blocked the learning? In several readings, I have repeatedly found the tendency to omit the importance of the learner in the process. The behavioural aspect of learning needs to be considered and we should recognize that even when everything is in order, learning may not take place.
One aspect of the process that can’t be overlooked is the fishermen’s friend. No I am not talking about the throat lozenge but rather the role of the teacher in the whole process. The fishermen who just read a book and self-teach themselves can expect to run into some problems. Fishing is more apprentice and master based and I can say that my apprentice was my father and I couldn’t have learned what I did without him. A great friend in the boat will assist the fishermen and not take over. “As teachers we cannot, do not, transmit information directly rather, we perform the teaching act when we help others negotiate passages between their constructs and ours, between ours and others” (Doll, 1993, p.180). For this I believe, a student has not learned until they have experienced the rush of catching a fish. The teacher is the guide on the side which by no coincidence is similar to the fishing guide. Leading the student to the fishing spot and providing feedback on lure choice and how to cast or reel in. The teacher should not be overlooked in the process and has a considerable impact on the learning that takes place.
What fishing trip is complete without assessment or evaluation? Is there a test? No and yes. If you don’t catch anything, you have failed (but you had a beautiful ride in a boat). Every fisherman knows that they will be assessed on the quality or quantity of their fishing trip. How many fish? How big were the fish? Two important questions that often lead to less than truthful answers, I know. One time I caught this massive fish that fought like crazy and pulled my boat around but it got away. But the size of the fish is the motivation for every student. The quest for the big one. Luckily, we can measure a fish whereas measuring learning or curriculum theories is more difficult. There may not be a right way. Everyone has their theory and it is just that – theirs. Can we measure that? We do measure learning and I will direct you to my other post on the blog that deals with the idea. I will mention that there is a distinct ranking amongst fishermen and many will exaggerate the size of their catch to move up those rankings.
In conclusion, I am reminded of another quote that says, “a bad day fishing is still better than a good day at school.” Or something like that although to me it is wrong. A bad day fishing equals not meeting your goals or objectives and to me this is not acceptable. In education, failure can’t be an option. This is why we strive so hard to change and improve our curriculum. Theorist after theorist have studied the process and attempted to find any problems and then correct them just like every fisherman reflects on his day and aims to do better next time. In both cases, mastering the process is virtually impossible due to the individualistic nature of the beast. We cannot predict the multitude of variables in either case but at the end of the day, we must focus on the success of the learner throughout the process and just enjoy the fish for dinner.
oicture courtesy of: http://www.bigfishtackle.com/photos/data/509/2-97.jpg
References:
Doll, William E. Jr. (1993). A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, Elliot W. (1985). The Educational Imagination on the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Goodson, Ivor F. (1994). Studying Curriculum: Cases and Methods. Toronto: OISE.
Miller, J.P. & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives & Practice. Toronto : Copp Clark Pitman.
Today’s reflection is brought to you by the letter A and the number.......WHO CARES!
Society, at least the one I am part of, has a distinct fascination with numbers. We quantify everything (at least 72.4 % of us do). The education world is no different. From the infamous #2 pencil to Bill 33 to TQS 5 (hopefully 6 one day) to 30 students per class to the 71 minute periods, everything has a number. Heck, one of my students even asked the other day if he could use the hall pass to “Go number two”. At what point did a bowel movement need a number? In the past, people would hunt animals, gather food and build fires. Over time, these same humans started to build cities and invent amazing technology. One day, a Mayan, Egyptian or Indian (depending on your source) decided to count using numbers. We have never looked back. Now, we use numbers so much that people suffer from arithmophobia (fear of numbers). We are anticipating a Numeric Plague soon and Bond, James Bond is undergoing a formal name change to lose his 007 status. Even Sesame Street’s Count Dracula has checked into a mental institution. It has gone too far. I am intrigued by this need to quantify and rank every last bit of our, on average, 80.7 year life. Can the education system function without this level of quantification?
In the BC education system, teachers submit grades based on a A, B, C+, C, C-, F scale. Of course, each letter grade translates to a certain percentage. For instance, an A is reserved for a student who has achieved 86% or better. Actually, 85.5% as we can round up. This begs the question, are teachers accurate enough in their assessment to distinguish an 86% student from an 85% one? Personally, I have switched over to a standards based grading system that is simply put into categories (Exceeding Expectations, Fully Meeting Exp., Minimally Meeting Exp., and Not Yet Meeting Exp.) as I feel it better informs the student as it provides feedback on where they are without quantifying it. In many skills based courses, you can either do something or you can’t. For example, in Physical Education, you can either do a lay-up and score or you can’t. I would assume then this would equal a 100% or 0% score. Score = Fully Meeting. Miss = Not yet meeting. But what about a beautiful layup without scoring, could that equal a minimally meeting expectations? Ideally, everyone in the class would be able to perform the skill. However, when I finish assessing the objectives using this system, I still need to enter my grades using the historic letter grade system that is transferred into a percentage in the electronic student information system. How can we possibly change our assessment system when the ministry requires a certain percentage? How can they change their system when they have pressure from post-secondary systems to assign a percentage to every prospective student? I can’t blame the institutions though as parents share the same mindset. During parent-teacher interviews, I have explained to parents how their child is doing in my class by outlining where their writing, reading, and oral communication skills are at and what they could work on improving. I show them exemplars of their work and ask the student what they feel their strengths and weaknesses are and then the parent simply replies, “What percentage is he at?” Change takes time.
Doll claims that “in a modernist frame, evaluation is basically used to separate winners and losers”(1993, p. 173). Why do we accept losers? Shouldn’t everyone be expected to succeed before moving on? Would we accept that a doctor got 51% on how to perform a certain surgery? I am a Level 2 First Aid attendant at my school and have to be certified every three years by passing a written and practical test. The scary part is that I only need 70% to pass. 70%! I hope you feel safe when I walk up and say, “I know First Aid, I can help…unless of course it was part of the 30% that I didn’t know, in which case, good luck!” Do you feel safe knowing this? So why do we pass students when we assess them as only demonstrating 50% of the outcomes? Doll states that, “grades are a way of measuring the ‘deficit’ between the canon presented and the canon acquired” (1993, p.172). So we are in essence just measuring what students don’t know. I am saddened at realizing how little we expect from our students. Sure we can’t expect 110% as that is reserved for athletes being interviewed after a game and describing how they play and hopefully for my grade on this reflection.
The next interesting part of grades and quantifying learning is the need to rank. We can’t just have everyone smiling after they do a lay-up. We want them to measure up against Sally since she got 10 in a row. Now she is the ideal norm that others strive to equal. Norms-referenced assessment is still found in many classrooms. There needs to be a switch to the criterion-referenced testing in which the student’s performance is compared to specific behavioural objectives rather than sorting the students (Eisner, 1985, p.123). If all my students meet an outcome, shouldn’t they all get a passing grade? What would happen at your school if a teacher submitted the grades with everyone getting 100%? Would people marvel at their teaching skills or ridicule their assessment tools? The Fraser Institute uses their data from standardized tests like the Foundation Skills Assessment to create report cards for school performance (Fraser Institute, 2011). So they have the ability to rank the schools in BC. Can they honestly say that they can assess and rank schools authentically? (check out video) There are so many factors to consider and I can’t remember a time when Fraser Institute people came to my school to interview students, teachers and administrators. I don’t recall them sitting in on classes or immersing themselves in the school atmosphere. No, they are able to rank with mere test scores. That seems rather subjective to me. What happened to triangulating evidence of assessment using products, conversation and observation? I would never rely on just test scores to evaluate something. Some people don’t work well under high-pressure test situations. So aren’t we really assessing their ability to take a test? Evaluation should be communal and interactive and used as feedback (Doll, 1993, p.174). Conversations with a student about their learning are ideal and can involve other parties as well. Doll mentions using dynamic social communities to help the individual through the critiquing process rather than relying solely on the teacher for feedback (1993, p. 174).
Do numbers make life easier for people? Does it prepare students for life after school? Does school really mimic life? We pass people through the education process based on a number on their birth certificate rather than their skills. I am happy that we have kindergarten so that not every stage of school is a number. The educational objectives state what the student should learn before moving to the next level rather than stating that when they turn 12 they may move to grade 7. Assessment and evaluation and the consequent reporting are difficult processes that take many forms across society. Contrary to what the Jackson 5 say, it is not as easy as 123. I don’t get to see the report card of my grocery store clerk, doctor, or police officer but I assume they are all passing with 51%. That is good enough for me as it is good enough for my students. I know I have exaggerated and made a few (14 to be precise) sweeping statements in proving my point that maybe education relies on numbers and ranking too much and that maybe we have an outdated system. When assessing this piece please notice that it has 1352 words – I think that is deserving of an 18 out of 20, or 90%, as long as I am in the top 85 percentile of the class I will be happy.
References:
Doll, William E. Jr. (1993). A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, Elliot W. (1985). The Educational Imagination on the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Fraser Institute. Retrieved from:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/report-cards/school-performance/overview.aspx
Goodson, Ivor F. (1994). Studying Curriculum: Cases and Methods. Toronto: OISE.
In the BC education system, teachers submit grades based on a A, B, C+, C, C-, F scale. Of course, each letter grade translates to a certain percentage. For instance, an A is reserved for a student who has achieved 86% or better. Actually, 85.5% as we can round up. This begs the question, are teachers accurate enough in their assessment to distinguish an 86% student from an 85% one? Personally, I have switched over to a standards based grading system that is simply put into categories (Exceeding Expectations, Fully Meeting Exp., Minimally Meeting Exp., and Not Yet Meeting Exp.) as I feel it better informs the student as it provides feedback on where they are without quantifying it. In many skills based courses, you can either do something or you can’t. For example, in Physical Education, you can either do a lay-up and score or you can’t. I would assume then this would equal a 100% or 0% score. Score = Fully Meeting. Miss = Not yet meeting. But what about a beautiful layup without scoring, could that equal a minimally meeting expectations? Ideally, everyone in the class would be able to perform the skill. However, when I finish assessing the objectives using this system, I still need to enter my grades using the historic letter grade system that is transferred into a percentage in the electronic student information system. How can we possibly change our assessment system when the ministry requires a certain percentage? How can they change their system when they have pressure from post-secondary systems to assign a percentage to every prospective student? I can’t blame the institutions though as parents share the same mindset. During parent-teacher interviews, I have explained to parents how their child is doing in my class by outlining where their writing, reading, and oral communication skills are at and what they could work on improving. I show them exemplars of their work and ask the student what they feel their strengths and weaknesses are and then the parent simply replies, “What percentage is he at?” Change takes time.
Doll claims that “in a modernist frame, evaluation is basically used to separate winners and losers”(1993, p. 173). Why do we accept losers? Shouldn’t everyone be expected to succeed before moving on? Would we accept that a doctor got 51% on how to perform a certain surgery? I am a Level 2 First Aid attendant at my school and have to be certified every three years by passing a written and practical test. The scary part is that I only need 70% to pass. 70%! I hope you feel safe when I walk up and say, “I know First Aid, I can help…unless of course it was part of the 30% that I didn’t know, in which case, good luck!” Do you feel safe knowing this? So why do we pass students when we assess them as only demonstrating 50% of the outcomes? Doll states that, “grades are a way of measuring the ‘deficit’ between the canon presented and the canon acquired” (1993, p.172). So we are in essence just measuring what students don’t know. I am saddened at realizing how little we expect from our students. Sure we can’t expect 110% as that is reserved for athletes being interviewed after a game and describing how they play and hopefully for my grade on this reflection.
The next interesting part of grades and quantifying learning is the need to rank. We can’t just have everyone smiling after they do a lay-up. We want them to measure up against Sally since she got 10 in a row. Now she is the ideal norm that others strive to equal. Norms-referenced assessment is still found in many classrooms. There needs to be a switch to the criterion-referenced testing in which the student’s performance is compared to specific behavioural objectives rather than sorting the students (Eisner, 1985, p.123). If all my students meet an outcome, shouldn’t they all get a passing grade? What would happen at your school if a teacher submitted the grades with everyone getting 100%? Would people marvel at their teaching skills or ridicule their assessment tools? The Fraser Institute uses their data from standardized tests like the Foundation Skills Assessment to create report cards for school performance (Fraser Institute, 2011). So they have the ability to rank the schools in BC. Can they honestly say that they can assess and rank schools authentically? (check out video) There are so many factors to consider and I can’t remember a time when Fraser Institute people came to my school to interview students, teachers and administrators. I don’t recall them sitting in on classes or immersing themselves in the school atmosphere. No, they are able to rank with mere test scores. That seems rather subjective to me. What happened to triangulating evidence of assessment using products, conversation and observation? I would never rely on just test scores to evaluate something. Some people don’t work well under high-pressure test situations. So aren’t we really assessing their ability to take a test? Evaluation should be communal and interactive and used as feedback (Doll, 1993, p.174). Conversations with a student about their learning are ideal and can involve other parties as well. Doll mentions using dynamic social communities to help the individual through the critiquing process rather than relying solely on the teacher for feedback (1993, p. 174).
Do numbers make life easier for people? Does it prepare students for life after school? Does school really mimic life? We pass people through the education process based on a number on their birth certificate rather than their skills. I am happy that we have kindergarten so that not every stage of school is a number. The educational objectives state what the student should learn before moving to the next level rather than stating that when they turn 12 they may move to grade 7. Assessment and evaluation and the consequent reporting are difficult processes that take many forms across society. Contrary to what the Jackson 5 say, it is not as easy as 123. I don’t get to see the report card of my grocery store clerk, doctor, or police officer but I assume they are all passing with 51%. That is good enough for me as it is good enough for my students. I know I have exaggerated and made a few (14 to be precise) sweeping statements in proving my point that maybe education relies on numbers and ranking too much and that maybe we have an outdated system. When assessing this piece please notice that it has 1352 words – I think that is deserving of an 18 out of 20, or 90%, as long as I am in the top 85 percentile of the class I will be happy.
References:
Doll, William E. Jr. (1993). A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, Elliot W. (1985). The Educational Imagination on the Design and Evaluation of School Programs. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Fraser Institute. Retrieved from:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/report-cards/school-performance/overview.aspx
Goodson, Ivor F. (1994). Studying Curriculum: Cases and Methods. Toronto: OISE.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Why Beyond the Teacher?
As I pondered an interesting name for a blog that would hook my reader and found that many were already taken, I found myself reflecting on what seem to be my underlying questions that I grapple with on a weekly basis. I narrowed it down to: Shut up and Read the Textbook! How to Pretend to Teach Kids and not get Fired, Lazy Teaching For Dummies, Education- what is it good for? and Beyond the Teacher. The last one was chosen because in my career I seem to constantly see what I can do to improve the learning environment in my classroom and don't question enough the things that I thought I couldn't. As I study the history of curriculum, learning, and education, I realize that my teaching is merely a small morsel of the overall meal. I am lucky to have a large degree of autonomy over my classroom but what do I do when that isn't enough? How do I know students are getting the best education possible?
This blog doesn't have ideas on how to engage students or amazing lesson plans or activities that are sure to maximize learning. You can go to any professional development seminar for those things. It doesn't have any grandiose ideas on how to 'fix' the education system. This blog is about my learning journey. My discovering of the bigger picture. My place in the puzzle. I will try to make it interesting for you but alas...that is not my goal. My goal is to articulate my thoughts, reflections and learning for myself but will make it available for you to peruse and digest. Feel free to spit it out when it makes you sick.
This blog doesn't have ideas on how to engage students or amazing lesson plans or activities that are sure to maximize learning. You can go to any professional development seminar for those things. It doesn't have any grandiose ideas on how to 'fix' the education system. This blog is about my learning journey. My discovering of the bigger picture. My place in the puzzle. I will try to make it interesting for you but alas...that is not my goal. My goal is to articulate my thoughts, reflections and learning for myself but will make it available for you to peruse and digest. Feel free to spit it out when it makes you sick.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)