First, I admit it. I loved Applebee. Not just because this book was concise, written in clear, intelligible prose, or used subheadings (sorry, Myers). 'Curriculum as conversation' is a compelling framework. I wanted to (and actually did) take lots of notes. As pointed out by michigeese, Applebee also does a good job of getting to the implementation phase. I like the courage involved in moving from theory to the nitty gritty of what this all might look like in actual classrooms. In fact, I liked it so much that I went on a long tangent...
I was intrigued by the Pacesetter English curriculum model (p. 93-98). Sounded like it had a lot going for it: student-centered, constructivist, collaborative, empowering, integrated, involving students in debates and extended explorations of significant topics and issues, etc. While the curriculum must have had its own set of issues to work out, it was clearly a significant departure from the traditional twelfth-grade English course. At the time of this writing (1996), Applebee notes that Pacesetter English was "still a work in progress." To be successful, Applebee writes, "will require new ways of thinking about the issues these texts raise... as well as changes in approaches to teaching and testing. Only time will tell whether teachers are ready for such shifts, or whether curriculum and assessment will be redefined in more traditional terms" (p. 98). So where are they now?
So time has told. It's a sad story, get ready. A quick Google search reveals that the Pacesetter curriculum has nearly reached oblivion. What was a hot topic of debate in the English Journal in 1995, was apparently not a financial success in the end for The College Board, who administered the final exam for profit (pretty out of keeping with the goals of this curriculum) and eventually discontinued the project after 2004-2005. You'd almost never know from their website that Pacesetter English ever existed. However, I did find one voice asking that the curriculum be re-issued as open content for teachers. Or you could scour the Internet for bootleg copies, I suppose.
I don't have any illusions about their being one magic curriculum. But I find it telling (if sad) that this promising curriculum, as a representation of a lot of what Applebee is describing, was ultimately not valued. Not 'profitable.' "Only time will tell whether teachers are ready for such shits, or whether curriculum and assessment will be redefined in more traditional terms." Guess time has told us to keep waiting...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This is a sad story, isn't it. Thanks for giving us the low down. I think it boils down to the issue of assessment. It is difficult to score portfolios on a state or national level with a high degree of reliability---also it takes a lot of time to score them. Yet these are, in my opinion, the most authentic types of assessment; they document learning and progress over time with measures that are centered on individual needs. There's such a tension between standardization and individualization. One former implies that we must always know before hand what kids must learn; the latter implies that we can never really predict what the child will learn through interactions with texts--we can only set-up the condiditons that are optimal for learning, and help students document it as it occurs. That's what I'm for!
I too lament the demise of the Pacesetter program. Damn, "standards." movement. We also need to address how current curriculum is "packaged" and delievered in an effort to reduce classroom variance. This system of pre-packaged on size fits all instruction may indeed simplify life for the teacher, but it continues to perpetuate the knowledge-out-of-context paradigm.
As I read the section on Pacesetter, in my cynical way, I thought this will never last because it is too difficult to score (not assess). Schools could not use it to compare one class to another, one school to another. There was not an easily identifiably bottom line. I also distrusted the idea that a class could be packaged. Even one as well intentioned as Pacesetter.
I, too, was very interested in the Pacesetters curriculum. Last year, at Reagan, I worked with the senior teachers to brainstorm and think about what our seniors needed in English IV. Of course, we hope that all of them will go on to college, but the reality is that this will be the last time some of them experience a true "English Class." Though the focus is suppossed to be British literature (Odd choice for senior year, if you ask me!) we wanted our students to leave, feeling prepared as potentially active citizens, responsible for their own destiny. We tried to encourage writing, projects, and discussion around current events and relevant issues. We wanted them to think, engage, and take action. Not that this could not happen through discussing themes and ideas covered in British Literature. Based on the experiences of our students, we found that it would better pair with texts like, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, excerpts from Fist,Stick, Knife, Gun (discussed in Angela's blog) and The Exonerated. Current articles on immigration were also of interest to our students.
It seems as if the Pacestters program encouraged students to be active participants in their learning/analyzing. I think this should be the standard by the time that students are seniors.
Your research on the Pacesetter curriculum model shows how our education system is dominated more by money than even tradition. The way school is "done" is very profitable for many people, and they'd certainly like to keep it that way.
I don't think it's teachers that aren't ready or willing.
You make a great point, Amy. We look to teachers, but we need to look at the context in which they are operating, look at where the power (and money) lie, at who has a vested interest in staying with the status quo...
As I commented on My Confetti, I was at a school that did portfolios, and as I read a.r.'s rehash of the program, it finally sunk in that this school was doing Pacesetters and kept it going after The College Board dissolved the program. I remember the teachers lamenting the ending of the program, but being committed to continuing the valuable work of the portfolios. And scoring (as the link above says) was the least of our problems.
Post a Comment