While reading this section from Ozar (Chapters 1-4), there were a number of passages which made me pause and think through the impact of the statements. Much of what was being proposed in terms of Outcomes-Centered Curriculum Design was not new to me, however the detail with which Ozar articulates her position was where I found the true wealth of this portion of the work. She is very clear and creative about the entire schema that she displays for what could truly be a revolution within education as a whole. All the better that she can also speak the language of Catholic education and contextualize things such as religious education within her schema. There would hardly be an educator of true reason who would completely reject the veracity of Ozar’s position. Having an end in mind, be it “goal” “outcome” or “objective” will better formulate the journey itself, along with some which might spur the one on the journey along on it. Ozar does not only outline this system well, but she expertly provides examples and ways in which it might be implemented by teachers as well as administrators.
I must admit, however, that this reading does leave me with unresolved questions, but that is where true learning occurs! After all, “Learning is not subject matter or content alone; learning is responding to the subject matter or content” (Ozar, p.39). In reading the major documents on Catholic Education and given their true charge that Catholic Education’s primary task is the formation of the individual student, it is not possible to quantify via assessment all aspects of character formation to which we are called to educate our students. All that a school does for the individual student cannot be measured by assessment, no matter how creative it may be. I do not mean to be as trite as to sound like I’m bringing up the “human being vs. human doing” argument made popular by the new-age movement. We are more than what we do, and Catholic educators believe this, yet it is what students “do” which is assessable and measurable in comparison with desired outcomes. Maybe our compromise should be that it is the “being” of the student we should more deeply take into consideration in formulating our goals and the outcomes which flow from them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Indeed, "all that school does for the individual student" is more than assessment can demonstrate. Our students are educated by many factors in our schools, and there are also good extracurricular programs which not only educate but indirectly or directly contributes even to the academic achievement of learners. So, I think school is a community that transforms students in many ways. However, the outcomes-centered curriculum design may help us and our students see better the meaning of what we are doing, and also to value more the person growing thereby. I feel though some resistance concerning the role of subject matter in the process. Thus far, in our Hungarian schools we've been very proud of the depth of school instruction, and somehow there is still positive feedback on that way of teaching.
ReplyDeleteI like your ending sentence. Why is it we seem to lose focus at times on the total student - or as you refer to as the being. While Ozar proposes writing outcomes from the student perspective, I feel that too many times this is not taking into consideration the whole student. Who is responsible for coordinating the outcomes in science, history, English, math, religion, etc. to ensure that they fit within the overall mission of the school. I am always concerned that the education process is disjointed and not cohesive which is also not measurable. If we ever ask students what they liked best of their education in a Catholic school, typically the response is a person or people. Not what they learned.
ReplyDeleteI think that you make a very interesting point about the fact that the real meat of what we want our children to gain as they leave our school is difficult to measure. I spoke a bit to that when I discussed how difficult it was to find evidence for the WASC team for our Student Learning Expectations. I think what you are talking about might be the broad goals of Catholic Education. Ozar speaks to the fact that goals usually cannot be measured, but it is when we break down the goal and infuse it with a more specific outcome, that's when we can create an assessment. It is also up to us to choose what evidence we will be looking for.
ReplyDeleteI agree that (at least in my mind) there still seems to be a bit of ambiguity about what we can and can't measure, but I have a bit of an uneasy feeling as a 1st grade teacher when we talk about how we get so bogged down by curriculum. In the lower grades the whole child is very important, especially learning how to socialize with each other. But I would say that the curriculum is pretty high up there as well. If my kids don't learn to read they will continue to struggle. If I don't teach them basic number sense then they will be lost in math. The primary grades are the base of all learning for the grades to follow. My blood pressure is rising as I write this... So how do we find that medium between "curriculum, curriculum, curriculum" and "we are here for the whole child so assessments don't really matter"...