First up...An answer to one of my cohorts reflections on our readings...
“If you add the term rigorous to curriculum you add a deeper meaning. It implies a higher level of quality for both the teacher and the student.”
Rigor and rigorous appear to have become the new darlings of the educational vocabulary. The implications are without rigor, or not rigorous, curricula we are somehow failing the student(s). So much so, that Ainsworth examines rigor, provides outside support and creates a definition. But is he correct in his assertions? I would argue the inclusion of rigor in education is misleading at best.
When parsing the meaning of rigor it is important to examine exactly what it means and what implications are present. If something is deemed rigorous, typically, we think it is hard. So, does hard mean good or higher quality?
Using the complete definition of rigor and rigorous, I am attempting to understand exactly what is being implied. Synonyms include: meticulous, conscientious, careful, diligent, exact, precise, thorough and my favorite, persnickety. All the former can be considered to be mostly positive in nature. However, as we investigate further we discover the, for lack of better, the dark side of rigor: strict, severe, stern, stringent, tough, harsh, ridged, relentless, unsparing, inflexible, draconian and uncompromising. So why is this important? Can we not pick and choose that which best matches up to our goals and objectives? Simply take what is deemed the best and leave the rest?
I would argue, no. Simply stated education is about learning and learning is about making mistakes, learning from those mistakes and discovering new ways to accomplish, answer or simply understand. Learning involves drawing outside the lines, getting your hands muddy and making wrong choices. If we do not know what is wrong how will we know what is right? Rigor implies something is hard (strict, uncompromising) and because it is hard, is good or of higher quality? It was a rigorous journey to the top of the mountain, but what was learned? I would argue, that it was hard to get to the top. After all, education cost money and in order to generate funding we need to prove we are getting our money’s worth, validation. Continuing, I would argue making something hard for the sake of making it harder adds no additional meaning or value, other than it was learned it was hard to accomplish.
When I was younger and taking physics in high school, we had to learn the squares and square roots of numbers 1 to 100. Believe me, it was rigorous, and really hard; I still have nightmares, and actually do remember a few. Oh, did I mention we were tested in front of the class as well? Did being tested, on and like that improve my understanding of physics in any way? Not sure, it was a tough class and I am not a science guy, but I still stand by the example.
Ainsworth writes, “A rigorous curriculum must remain flexible, adaptable to the diverse and continually changing learning needs of all students it serves.” Hmm, I am confused. Ainsworth is using terms such as flexible, adaptive, diverse and changing, did the definition of rigor change and no one inform me? Someone get Webster on the line! Or has the term rigor simply been added to sell the product and or attempt to add relevance? High school diplomas are hard to earn, validation! Again, by making it harder, are we in fact making it better? Is the thought process, if the rigor is increased, it adds value therefor it is better?
I had an ongoing, I will call it a discussion, with my teacher assistant about the high school diploma. She was always upset because I differentiated instruction and assessment for my students. In her words, not mine, “dumbing it down.” Having eight students made this somewhat possible, although it was rigorous to keep on top of it all. It was a self contained EI/EBD room of high schoolers. They were basically mine all day. For me the goal was increased work effort, and the pacing guide was the same I would use in a general ed class setting, for each of my 14 content areas. I used negative reinforcement, allowing, based on the amount of work accomplished, lessons to be “skipped.” By allowing them to get away with, in their minds less work, they actually worked harder. I never intended for them to complete the same level of work as general ed students, after all, the had IEPs, emphasis on “Individual” part, but I was teaching first the importance of work, and second the skill of how to find information. Rigor was not in content, although state test scores increased for them all, but rather in work. For me, if they worked hard, which is rigorous, were able to find the answers, and could prove findings, they earned success, i.e. grades. As Ainsworth posed, they were being prepared for the “test of life.”
Does an emotional impaired learning- disabled student really need to memorize the melting point of different minerals? I would argue, no. But just in case, he does need to know how to find it. In the end, the high school diploma could mean the difference between digging ditches or working at McDonalds, or something comparable.
When we purposely make something hard, rigorous, to make it harder, value is not necessarily increased. I would argue those learning tend to not respond well to harder, if they see no relevance or reason. When you make education relatable and fun, students intrinsically motivate themselves to accomplish and learn. If the point of the educational system is to prepare students for the “test of life”, is that actually accounted for in curricula that is more rigorous?
My question to you is how does introducing “harder” lead to higher quality, especially in an educational environment?
No comments:
Post a Comment