Recently I have been planning my next unit which I will start in March. The unit is in companion with the required novel "A Light in the Forest," a classic novel that is particularly cool to teach around here because it deals with the tension between Native Americans and Colonists in Lancaster, Columbia and th surrounding areas. I am basing the unit around the theme of culture and to start I wanted to make sure my students have a good idea of the history of Native Americans in this country. Something beyond the happy feathered folklore that shared the first Thanksgiving with the peaceful pilgrims. In other words I wanted them to see the truth behind the mistreatment of Native Americans starting with colonization and continuing today (it's an awesome transition from our Hunger Games Identity/Social injustice issues). In preparation for this unit I realized I could not remember much of my previous Native American education. Terms such as "Wounded Knee," "Trail of Tears," and "Sitting Bull" popped up in my brain, but I couldn't for the life of me remember specifics. So I talked to my teams Social Studies teacher about what the kids already know. Apparently 8th grade is the year they "touch on" Indians through the Western Expansion Unit but they do not talk more in-depth until 11th grade.
I have beef with this for a lot of reasons. First, since when has been possible to over learn something? To "overdose" on truth? I'm not picking on my district or the social studies department either, all districts have this problem with all content areas. For instance as an English teacher, it's just known that kids will read The Outsiders in 9th grade and To Kill a Mockingbird in 9th. In fact, I am supposed to discourage my students from reading, watching or even thinking about To Kill a Mockingbird as eighth graders, because that is a 9th grade book. Has anyone ever read To Kill a Mockingbird too much? Can my students over learn family values, racial equality and the damage caused by rape? I hope not. I have read the Great Gatsby three times, not nearly enough. I recently read Our Town for the third time, it was like reading a new play. Good literature hits you everytime you read it, the cool thing is, it hits you differently depending on where you are in your life.
I'm not saying we should start reading Gatsby in 8th grade and every year of school after, what I'm saying is we shouldn't let adhering to a curriculum get in the way of teaching. Curriculums are made by governments, look at our government, do you trust them to know what's best for your kids? Is the even a "best" for "kids." Can we say EVERY student must know this? I don't know. I think kids are unique everywhere. Kids in Cocalico may not need to read the same books as kids in Lancaster city. It's a different culture. That being said, kids in the same class really don't have to read the same book, at least they shouldn't. The book I'm about to teach is regard pretty widely as boring. I like it a lot, and I'm guessing students that really like history or are into local history or stories rooted in nature and family will like it. So for those kids I say read it. What bout the other kids? Well in most classrooms they have to read it too. SO they either struggle through a book they hate, look up the summary online or just don't read. I'm not ok with any of those options.
When units are based on broad issues, rather than rigid curriculum, students can find somewhere to plug in. I could think of 10 books in 30 sec that could realate to the theme of culture and my kids would benefit from reading. In fact, the whole class would benefit because students would all be getting new knowledge/perspective and sharing that with the class. Think about it, a discussion that represented 20 different books on culture versus a discussion of one book. That a place where I want my kids to learn. Todays schools are fueled by "content coverage" meant to prepare them for standardized tests. So each class cruises through individual units that show no relationship to previous units or other classes. We don't learn that way. Our brains are not a bureau with organized, separate drawers. Learning is organic, and it relies on prior knowledge and experience. So kids should be talking about Native American culture every year in history. Then relating that to the novel they read in English and then next year when they read Mockingbird they can connect the ideals of southern culture to the Native American culture, and so on and so forth.
I've been working on my resume and I need an objective for the top. SOmething that defines me and separates me from others. Hows this "My goal, nay my promise, is to never put any test or curriculum above learning. I would sacrifice half the content in a year for one day of learning that will stick with my students forever." Might not get me a lot of jobs, but I think i'll sleep like a baby.
Love it! I wonder though, this seems to be more like a civics lesson that you are driving at... Do you think it is possible to intertwine this in an effective manner while also juggling the literary devices, text structure, etc? And if so, are our students capable AND WILLING to ingest two paths of information all at once?
ReplyDeleteMy argument is that they are, but since they are so used to the over-the-top isolation model in classrooms, they are more likely to resist a dual bandwidth of information... labeling it "too much work." Frustrating as it is, I don't really blame them. Yet I can't stop trying to show them the light.