Dear E.D. Hirsch,
Let me introduce myself. I'm a high school Language Arts teacher and have been for the past ten years. The first time I heard of you was in an Education course while pursuing my Bachelor of Science in Education. Now, ten years later, your name has come up in yet another course I'm taking dealing with Education. And the thing is, I didn't agree with you then and I don't agree with you now.
Yes, I realize you say that curriculum is important and I know no one will argue with that point. However, everything else you insinuate is ridiculous. In your book Cultural Literacy, you argue that the economic equality rests on uniformity of subject matter in schools. You say that poor people are at a disadvantage because they lack baseline content knowledge - however, you make no real recommendations how poverty-stricken communities are supposed to get their students to study. Many of those students go to a job after school or go home to take care of younger siblings, or worse those students are out doing illegal activities; So do you think those students will care about your "cultural literacy'? Do you think those students care about the "dead old white guys"?
Additionally, you harshly criticize "the project method" - you've got to be kidding? That is the best hands-on way that students learn and appreciate the subject matter! For example, in the past I've had students memorize the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen..." speech from Julius Caesar for a grade, and guess what, a week later, they would no longer remember it. However, when I assigned a visual project to be created based on the play, they brought in exceptional work because they said it was fun to do, but among the fun, they learned something that will not be forgotten.
The bottom line is this, as much as you're a big name in the world of Education, I think more people disagree with your opinions, than actually commend you for some innovative philosophy. Your philosophy is anything but novel. Your antiquated, rote memorization as a form of mastering content is not the way to go!
Sincerely,
Maria Debowska
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dear Ms. Debowska,
I appreciate your honesty, but I must confess that your critiques of my theories are nothing new. With all due respect, I hardly think my cultural literacy terms only pertain to "dead white guys"--it refers to a vast amount of cultural terms with which well-educated, intelligent Americans should be familiar.
It is also no excuse to say that certain students have too many responsibilities outside of school when it comes to remaining dedicated to the traditional way of learning and studying. Students have always had time constraints; perhaps the responsibilities themselves have changed, but that should not matter in the scheme of things.
On a positive note, I am glad that you have found engaging activities for your students and I have no doubt you inspire them to learn with your creativity. I applaud the fact that you still ask students to memorize Shakespearean speeches. Although it may not provide much in the way of entertainment for them, it is important for students to be exposed to great literature. In that case, the memorization will only encourage them to truly appreciate the intricacies of the English language that are tragically missing in much of today's "literature."
Best regards,
Mr. E.D. Hirsch
Dear Ms. Debowska,
Thank you for taking the time to read the books that I have written on what students should be learning in school. It is extremely disappointing that you are unable to realize the importance of developing culturally literate students. Our students are the people who will run this country in the not-too-distant future. Think about the following question: do you want someone running this country who does not know how many votes are necessary to pass legislation in Congress? I guess for you it is more important that you are compassionate about the fact that some inner city students have a “tough” life. I suppose if things do not go the way a student wants them to go then it is acceptable if that student does not get the same quality education that a student who does not have as many hardships is getting. Such an attitude is not only unfair, but it is immoral. In my opinion, you are snubbing your nose at President Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation. Your attitude will allow for the continued inequality of education from district to district. Thus, some students will inevitably get “left behind”.
You oppose a uniform curriculum throughout all schools. While, I have backed off this philosophy to some degree in recent years, I do feel this concept makes a lot of sense. You, the typical teacher who complains about change, state that this idea will not work. While I admit that you could be right, we will never know if a uniform curriculum will improve education unless we try it. My reasoning for such a curriculum is that it will even out the “playing field” as much as possible. If we make sure that students in the inner cities are learning exactly what the students in the wealthier areas are learning than the students are at least on an equal “playing field” when it comes to education.
You also posed the question, “Do you think those students care about the ‘dead old white guys’?” To be honest, it does not matter if students care or not, although they should care. Students should want to be culturally literate; however, whether they want to be or not, they should be forced to be culturally literate. School is a place for learning, and it is not necessary to teach lessons that interest the students using innovative techniques. It is necessary, on the other hand, for a teacher to provide knowledge to the students in the most efficient means possible. There is nothing wrong with rote memorization, for example, if it transfers information from the teacher to the students in an efficient manner.
Lastly, I am glad to hear that you have had students memorize the play Julius Caesar in the past. This tells me that at least some of your former students should have an appreciation for the English language. You mentioned that I criticize the “project method”. While you are correct, I do this solely because of this method’s lack of efficiency. Much more information can be passed on to the students via a rote memorization technique. There is little doubt in my mind that the “project method” can be successful at getting students to learn a concept. However, it takes too long, and should not be used as a result. For example, memorizing a play takes a lot less instruction time than acting the play out, and students still gain an appreciation for the English language by memorizing the play.
In conclusion, I must admit that your views are so typical of a stubborn teacher who is unwilling to change his or her strategy. If we use a uniform curriculum then only one thing is certain. All students will learn the same thing and leave school with a quality education. What could be fairer than that?
Sincerely,
Mr. E. D. Hirsch
Dear Ms. Debowska,
While I can see the validity in your points, I must disagree with the notion that students wouldn't care about my "cultural literacy." When teaching, one would not announce to the class, "Hello, today we are learning about cultural literacy." It is about a obtaining a global level of education. It is about having citizens of America be intelligent human beings.
While I agree that having students learn in a variety of settings is good, I believe that some rote memorization is not bad for them. In fact, knowing basic facts (by memorizing) allows for students to dig deeper when discussing content that is more anchored into purposes and real life situations. Having the ability to know simple facts will leave time for a more in-depth discussion.
Thank you for your letter. I appreciate that you have continued your education in order to expand your knowledge base.
Best regards,
E.D.H.
Post a Comment