What is your philosophy and what are its implications for standards-based teaching?

We will bring greater clarity to our discussion of standards if we understand how they can differ depending on one's educational philosophy. For example, Wiggins' use of the word "standard" is very different than that of, for example, someone advocating a curriculum as technology (CAT) approach. He argues for performance standards that address issues of quality, such as craftsmanship, insight, persuasiveness, logical reasoning, and other qualities of mind. Performance standards of this kind are very different from those that call for learning that isolates skills to teach through drill and practice only, apart from authentic learning experiences, which is what a supporter of CAT would advocate. Being able to recite the reasons for the Civil War is very different from being able to persuasively explain the relationships among these causes and the relative importance of each.

Academic rationalism (AR) is compatible with standards that focus on transmitting a classical education. If you believe that standards should not be limited to doing this or that there is no one body of content that necessarily trumps others, then you would not fully support an AR approach to developing standards.

Self-actualization (SA) emphasizes the affective dimensions of education and believes in providing students with some choice regarding what learning they pursue and how they demonstrate it. We don't see much of this in most state or national standards, and since most SA proponents oppose predetermined standards, SA is largely incompatible with state and national standards. However, I believe they are not mutually exclusive and that one can readily find ways to focus on both personal development and academic content. The affective dimensions of teaching and learning can and should be incorporated into a standards-based curriculum. It's a priority if the standards are to be met.

Social reconstructionism (SR) proponents want students to become informed, questioning citizens who work for reform and a better society. Some state and national standards ask students to take a critical look at social institutions, although for the most part this is not a priority.

My own use of the term "standards" is largely based on a cognitive processing (CP) philosophy while also including some of the canon (AR), focusing on the needs and feelings of individual students (SA), and including content that has students examining society's institutions with the intent of judging how one might work to continually improve our democracy (SR).

Worthy performance standards hold students to high expectations, which means having them redo their work until it meets at least "good enough" standards. I believe that we currently see very little of this kind of commitment in the classroom. Not everyone can become really good at everything, but ironically if our teaching embodies this belief, we will often fail at helping students be as good as they can be. We will resign ourselves to the "bell curve," which is the kiss of death for maximizing excellence or at least "good enough" performance.

Think about what your philosophy is. To what extent does it draw upon one or more of the five we have been discussing? Then, consider the implications of your philosophy for what you mean by standards and, in turn, their implications for teaching and learning.

Learning with text, not from text

Students who read for pleasure are, generally speaking, the strongest readers when it comes to learning from textbooks. The Vacca & Vacca chapter makes the distinction between learning from texts vs. learning with texts. Learning with a text would mean the teacher points out headings and turns headings into discussion questions. It would involve the teacher thinking aloud and modeling for students or showing students how to use graphic organizers to organize the information in the text. Learning with a text is a much more involved process guided by teachers.

-Dr. Eileen Erween, Reading in Content Areas