2

One of the wonderful things about being in education as either a teacher or an administrator is that there is always something new happening which draws one's attention. The students don't seem lo change, nor do the problems, but certainly we educators spend 11 great deal of time looking for new ways of doing the same thing for the same people- the students. It is true thnt not all that fascinates in innovations is pure and new, for behind many of them lurk ideas and methods of the past which often seem like the pendulum coming bnck to tantalize us with their promises of answers. We've tried all kinds of things lo remedy our problems- some of the techniques we've cussed, and some of them we 'vc praised.

We educators have probably been some of the best innovators in any field of endeavor. We've developed team leaching, large group instruction, individualized instruction, block scheduling, core-curriculum, homogeneous grouping, heterogeneous grouping, we've got grouping and non-group­ing, graded and ungraded, we've even got student self­direction (which we 'vc wondered if it was any direction at all). Then we've got teacher-student direction, we've got modular scheduling, 11xtended session scheduling, we 'vc "X" and "Y" periods, and staggered schedules. Then we've gone to an even more modern set-up; we've got modern math (I don't know what happened to the old math), PSSC physics, SMSG, and on and on and on. And last, but not least, the high school with the new look (what was the "old" look'?). Innovations, there's no shortage of them in public school education. We 're probably the most gim­micked profession in the world. Even the doctors don't have as many pills as wc have innovations.

I read a lot of professional publications; I read them

Is There Time for a School Curriculum?

C.R . lngi ls

fairly avidly. You know you can always rely on each new publication to give you a new innovation that is generally presented in rather fuzzy educational terms- they 're glow­ing in what they will do for you but they never quite tell you why you should follow their prescriptions. On occasion I think we educators, particularly secondary, follow a lot of these innovations and devices simply lo escape from the real question that should be al hand; thnt is, "whnl should we be teaching children'?'' We haven't as yet decided whal is of most worth in education, as a matter of fact, we can't even 111,rrcc among ourselves what children should be learning or whether they are learning from us. I think there is a most unfortunate characteristic among educators- it is thal most of us are "me loo." We seem lo agree that the other fellow in education has as good a point lo make as we do. And we also seem lo agree thnt his subject is as important as ours, cxccpl for one point, we don't want him lo tnke any of our leaching time away from our particular inslructional area, whatever it might be. But still, we give him credit for having some point in his wanting to teach what he feels to be important in the way he wishes lo teach it.

Let me suggest that in spite of all the innovations that we already have that we "innovate" another innovation. It is simple. Let's decide what the functions of the public schools are. Of course there arc some problems in this proposal for we haven't agreed on what we should leach; ycl we all agree that we should leach the important things. But here our bias enters and we get in arguments as lo what is important in education. For the sake of discussion let's restrict ourselves lo secondary education. We all agree English and/or language is importnnt- grammar certninly.

We can't agree on what kind of grammar- some of us want lo do a lot of diagramming, others want lo teach grammar as grammar, others want it us a part of composition and literature and drama and some even want lo include spelling, and so on and so forth. We 're spending a lot of time lately deciding that the leaching of language is really "linguistics." Is this semantics or a different probrram'! Then we come to the people who want lo leach composi­tion and who insist that you can teach anything through this medium. Four hours of it a day will leach you almost anything. Then there arc the people who like litcraturc­thcy can leach composition through literature as well as grammar and many other areas. And then, there arc lht• dramatists who insist that drama provides the liesl device for teaching all kinds of things from speech lo grammar lo composition to .... There's one group that's Leen forgotten though in secondary education in the field of language or English or linguistics- who left out rt'ading'! Somebody did. We're not teaching it as a subject any longer. They learned all the reading, I guess, that they nt•cdcd to know by the end of the sixth grade. But unfortunately some of them can't read. So this presents somt'lhing of a problem lo us.

Social Studies- now social studies is a dirty word. It's probably as bad as any word in g..ncral use in the English language in America today. There arc somt' otht'r orws that I won't mention becuuse they aren't used in polite socirty, but social studies is, and thoroughly cussed. But ll't 's usr it as a kind of catch-all term since it's l.icen a catch-all for decades. Of course, a part of social studies is history. We all agree we like history. IL has an important place in education because from the past we can learn a great deal. Unfortu­nately, we haven't learned anything, but let's not be discour.iged by this. What history is of most importance'! Ancient history certainly, for ll11· Greeks had something to leach us. They taught us all ahoul health and this bl'f'Cal wonderful sports event culled the olympics where every­body is in agreement that it contributes lo world unity, sportsmanship, and will affect the futur1• of Lht' world. The trouble is that the various teams seem lo sometimes get mud al each other and that serves as a point of argument and unity and sportsmanship seem lo get trampled. Modern history- it, too, is certainly important. Look al the wonder­ful things that have happ1•ned in the last 50 years that man can look hack 011 with a certain amount of pride and awe (or is trepidation a licttcr choice of a word'!). European history - it certainly is the scat of the civilization for the Western world. American history- you can't lcave that out, the Daughters of the American Revolution won't stand for it if you do. Geography, certainly, it's changing all the time.

\Ve have lo leach geography. What kind? Physical geog­raphy, economic geography, political geoi,rruphy, or'!. Soci-0101,'Y, I think we ought Lo put this in the curriculum too because we don't g• ~l along very well together even in education, much less outside of this group of peers, who seem to he fighting all the lime. We must leach psycholob'Y for we rlt'cd lo urulerstand as much as is possible of human nature in order lo work the other guy and we 'vc got lo have certain defenses against his attempting Lo work us. The problem here is, whose psychology'! Freud's'! Well, I don 'L think most mothers will stand for our leaching Freud's psychology in the classroom- certainly not if we give all the facts. And then there's Fcsling('r who hcli1•v1•s that no ont• doPS anything eXcl'pl Lo relieve his discomfort in a situation and one docsn 't really do anything for pleasurt'. And then we havt• Dewey. Of course the parents don't like him liecause tilt' kids gPl lo do anything they want and the teachers don't like that either lwcausc the kids won't do anything that the teachers want. And then there's citiz1·11-ship. What style of citizenship is the problem. Arc we going lo leach Birch Society typ1• citizenship or Moslem citizen­ship or arl' we going lo leach republicanism citiZPnship, democratic, lihrralism, conservatism, or what other ism­this presents something of u problem. Then you must include the problems of i,rovcrnmcnt and its related subjects of human behavior, socioloi,'Y and psycholoi,'Y 1111d what havt: you- another problem with people of different hiascs. Tlwn we get into int1·1,rrJtion and rac1• prohlt•ms and supremacy of all kinds- no muller what you say IH're you 'rt• wrong.

Math- what kind, new or old'! llow much, lo whom"! Science, we 'vc ht•cn teaching biology, chemistry and phys­ics, but it isn't enough. \Ve 're not up with the Russians yet, and thr Chinese arc catching up, I understand. Crrtainly, you 'II get no argument on this last slalcmt'nl from Admiral Rickover. Foreign languages, we 're all for them. We c1lucators speak in a lot of slrang1• tongues. But the problem is, what language'! And if we do d1•cidc to leach !!Dmc language, let's say German, is it really the language this kid should know 20 years from now or not. I think some people arc convinced that languages themselves have an inherent value that somehow or other you carry with you for the rest of your life. And P.E. Should we have P.E.'! Sure we should. The American male is the most dt•crepit example of manhood in the world. Tlw Army has told us this time and time again. He's getting worse all the time, unfortunately. So we ought lo have physical fitness and physical development, and, of course, it ought lo he fun. That's the American theme- "everything ought lo be fun."

3

4

So we 'vc gol lo lhrow recrcalion in here i,omcwlu:n·. I don 'l know whal kind- Lul we 'vc gol to have recn·ation in then• nmwthcless- maybe it oughl lo be TV watching. And then there's vocational arts. W1·'rc Lill' country that has the "know how." Let's lake typing for inslanc1•. This is a skill that we should hav1• "cause" we can't wrilc, al least so anyone can n•ad it - so w1· ought lo know how lo type. Uookkecping, yt•s, that's imporlant because the government insists that we pay them what we owe llll'm and if you 'vc madc out your own income Lax rnporl r1:ccnlly, you aren 'L much of a bookkeeper, arc you'! Ami tlwn there's wood· working. Evcryhocly ought lo have the aLility lo work in wood if for no other reason than because you can 'l afford a carpt•ntcr. l\faylw we ought to institute plumbing for the same n·ason. And drafting. I don 'L know why we have drafting, hut we do. Maybe draft-dodging would be more appropriat1• today. \fachine i,hop, well, that's important, too. Art - we 'vc got an argument here- should it Le finl' arts or lhc applit•d arts'? I don't know. Music, wc\c got lo have choral music. They've got to appreciate choral music as well as other forms of music. We 'vc gut to teach ki1ls lo play instruments of various kinds. But then we gl'l lo a proLlem- should they appreciate music or should they participate or slwul1l they appreciat1• as wrll as participate. Unfortunately, many kids dun 't appreciate music after they have participal1•d i1whilc. Then, we 'w got a lot of courst•s we might put under "cl cetera." Morals and mamlt'rs and cvt>ryhocly is for that. First aid, we need that. Narcolics­wcll, in California lhcy must leach them ahuut narcolies. The law says so. Don't forget lo leach ahout alcohol. And then, we have lo leach lhem driver training, too. Don 'L forget lhal some p•·oplc wanl kids to b1• taught n·ligion 1•vcn if it is illl'gal. But, which religion and which sectarian branch'? There arc a lot of thini,,rs I have not mentioned. Time for co1ms1·ling and guidance, activities sclwdules in lhl' srcondary schools. w .. 'n· got lo produce an annual, we've got a student council that we ha\c to look out for. We 'w gol newspapers, plays, sports, carnivals, festivals, a111l on and on and on.

We've got a proLlcm haven't we'? We arc teaching all these things - and there isn 'l one of these which I have mentioned that we arcn 't leaching except religion which has been declared illegal. Let's go hack now and look al what Wt' decided we 're going lo structure an educational progr.im around. \Ve agrct'd that English is needed so we 11 put a period a tlay asicl1! for English. And one for social studies cause that's important. Malh, one p1·riod there, a period for science, and a period for foreign language and a period for physical cclucalion and one for vocational arts

and one for arts and music. Okay, we should have some counseling lime, too. So far we've got eight periods a clay. We havt'n 'l any morals and manners, though; we haven 'L any first aid; we haven 'l any narcotics or alcohol or driver training. So we 'vc gol something of a pruhl1•m if we un· going lo work all these things into a school clay.

Then· is a solution. I'm sure the idea has occurred lo all of us at some time or another. We've Leen "perfecting" this particular solution fur a long time. We put murals and manners in the English class, alcohol and narcotics into seil'nCc, driver training into social studies, the annual into somchocly or another's class, first aid in lo I' .E. and counseling Lime out of cvt·ryLody's classes. And then lo follow tlw American theme, we 'vc included sex into cv1·rything. You SU} that nobo1ly is happy now. Why not'? This is thl' time honorc•tl method of scheduling high schools, isn't it"! There's another answer though and it's one that's corning in lo fashion. Let's lengthen the school day, the school y1•ar, and put in mun• periods than w•· 'vc ever had hcforc. You arc worric1l ahout Loo long a school clay'? How ahout shorter pt'riods tlwn, i[ we won 'l want an 1•ight or nine hour uay. Well, that creates a proLlcm, too. Shop people and P.E. clon 'l like it hccause they want long periods. And English complains hccausc all they gel clone is teaching grammar and thry don't havl' lime for literature, drama, composition and so on. Wl'll, let's keep the periods long, Llu: kids aren 'L t•xpcclt•d lo l'njoy learning anyway. Bcsidl'S, I suppose, someone will nm' say that now that we've lc!ngthl'nccl the school day, the school year, the numLer of periods, the poor student will do poorer work and that the good student is aLout lo have a nervous breakdown. Oh well, same old story. We must gear teaching to the average ki<l and we have to expect other kids lo adapt to the situation. We can't tolerate misfits. Familiar'~ IL ought lo he because we 'vc hccn using this method of thinking and adaptation of scheduling for longer than any of us have been in 1:clucalion. Thcrl' isn't one of us who is an exception lo that no muller how long we 'vc Lt'cn in education.

What is the right answer'? Or even for that matter, is there a possible answer'! Let's agree that all we have mentioned in education is of worth Lecausc we 'vc all got our scpar.ilc clcfcnclcrs for l'ach of the things that have Leen mentioned. Even the ones that I have mentioned facetious· ly, But we don 'L have lo admit that each of these items is nec1·ssarily of cl1ual worth. But nonetheless, they arc of worth. The English, the social studies, the math, the science, the vocational arts, the arts, the music and so on. As teachers we want all students lo be skilled in English.

The 1,rrammar, the composition, the speech, the reading. The social studies- history, we know we can't leach all of it so we must decide what we're going to teach or what is of most worth. We all agree that there is some worth in gco1,rraphy, citizenship, government, sociolob'Y, and psychol­ogy. It's obvious that we can't leach all of these subject areas and scatter tlu·m through all clm.scs, nor, fur tlmt matter, leach them all al the same time in the same class. We can't do it because the span of allf•ntion of children is Loo limited. We haven't a chance of evaluating such a conglomeration or hodgepodge of subjects all in the same period in any event. So why clo we even try'! \Ve 'v1• been trying it in all these subject ar1·as for years- we haven't the faintest notion of wlwthcr we rt•ally affect an t•ducalional change in chilclren 's minds an cl behavior or not; or whether they simply learn on their own in spite of us.

The prohlcm seems clear- we 'vc got tu l1•ach all of these things and w1"vc only got so many ti•achcrs, so many facilities and so much lime in which lo du it. Maybe tlwre is an answer which we ca11 apply Lo our situation and come up with a different solution lo our problem. Let me apply a particular yardstick in an oversimplified manner tu our problem anti this oversimplified yardstick will lw related lo llcxiblc scheduling. I'm not allcmpling al the moment lo work out a completr schedule but just lo make certain suggestions lo you. You will probably argue with tlw point!! I make, al least in terms of allocation, lrnt in some n•spccls that is somewhat irrelevant since each of you wilt have your own altitudes, your own faculty will also haVl' tlll'ir own different altitudes. In composition anti English, why don 'l we spend three days a week, 40 minutes a da} in this area, or 120 minutes a week. Why don't we start Leaching reading al the secondary level since it is obviously a prohh·m and has been for many, many years. Take time for leaching reading a couple days a week for periods of ·W minutes. Anti lilcraturc, we can get literature in- it's important loo. Perhaps one day a week for 40 minutes. And Lhen in Lill' field of social studies. lsn 't is obvious'! - w1: haw to leach history. We clon 'l have to leach all history. We can select portions of it and it probably can bt• compressed into some amount of time like two clays a week for 40 minutes a clay. Anti gcoi,,rraphy, we should he leaching gcobrraphy for not just one year in the entire life of the high school student or junior high school student. We ought lo be l1mching it periodically throughout their formal education lo keep them up-lo-date in this vast changing arena in which they live. J\laybc one day a week every yrar for 40 minutes. Anti then governm1ml we leach government occasionally, gener­ally when they arc juniors or seniors and we give them a

smattering of government about the 7th or Bth grade as well. But why nut more gowrnmcnl, nut just ,\mcrican government, bul all government. Let's give tlll'm one clay a week, 40 minutes a clay. Let's gel in Lu the important fields of sociolo1,ry, psychology, and economics fur on1• clay aiul for 40 minutes. Kids ordinarily hate math by tlw time they reach the !Ith or 9th gradl'. Why'~ Well, they've gone over the same clam old sluff so often year a her year that tlwy'rc jusl fed lo the brills. Let's have a good math program. \\ r rH'ccl ma} be two or three clays a week for 40 minutes each day. Let's quit filling in five periods y1·ar after year of repetitious math. Science, I used lo love lo gel kids in the Bth or 9th gracll' (who hadn 'L had any science) hccausc they were so enthusiastic aboul the idea of sci1·nc1•. But once in awhile I would gel kids who had had s1·v1•n or 1•ight yt•ars of "science" up lo that timr and I clicln 't hav1· a chance of interesting them in what I wanted lo leach tlu•m in !iri1•11t'I'. Probably L1•causc I wasn't a good teacher, but I still didn't haw a chance. They art• a littl1· b1•clraggll'<l by tin• time they have had "science" every day, a full hour a day, hy the time they gel through high school. They 'w too often learned lo halt· scit>ncc with u pas!:lion - i.u let's have it a couple of clays a week for 80 minutes so that we can lak1• into cunsitlera· lion a lab period. Let's have science on a l1·ctun· hasis for three clays a week with 20 minute!! fur a !t•cture. This ducsn 't fatigue the teacher nor the students. That 1,rivcs the teacher a chance lo have a d1•c1•nt lab period. In loo man} ari•as of education we practiec Parkinson 's Law more thoroughly than we du good educational planning.

Let's talk about vocational arts - two clays a w1~ 1·k for a longer block of time so that Liii' student lms a chanrc lo gl'L his project out, and put it away and yet work on it as well. I've seen loo many shop periods wheri• the kid got tlw project out; he got started wlu·re lw left off the w1•ck hdorc; and then he had lo put it away bec:.msc of tlw bell. Well, it takes a whole year lo finish squaring up a hlock by this method. L1•t 's giv1• him a couple of day!! a w1·t'k with a sufficient Bpau of time in which lo work, maybe an hour and a half or al least a period of time near this figure. \Ve have created the same problem iu relation to art that we did in vocational arts. Let's have it a couple of clays a week- maybe BO·minulc blocks of time. The field of music - maybe we ought lo have choa-Jl music for all kids a couple of days a week rather than five periods a week for an cnlim period which is often anywhere from 40 minutes lo an hour in length. We have a chance then lo schedule studt'llls into instrumt'nlal music- Lill' lll'ginning stuclf'nls an opportunity to parlicipalc in a group session two clays a week for 40 minutes each. In addition, for the bc1,rinner,

5

why shouldn 'L we brive him fiw tlays a week of may he 20 minutes a day lo pracLicc so LhaL he has rcpcliLion anti opporLunity for guitlancc anti intlivitlual insLrucLion, anti for Lhc advanced sludcnL the Lime he needs of perhaps Lhrec days of rn minutes each. In physical cdueaLion WC know that il is imporlanL LhaL each sLudenl have exercise e·v<'rytlay, prohahly a five-day sche1lulc of 60 minutes or sonll'lhing of this naluri· wh1:n·in we can get in physical fiLrH'ss, physical elevclopm1•11t, 1lcvclopmcnl of skills as well as some recreational nctivilirs if w1• feel il is imporlanl.

We 'vc done a numhcr of things here, we 'vc recobrr1izcd that there should lie Jiffcre•nL tim1• schrdule· for the Leaching of various subjects. Up lo datr we 'vc just fill1·d in periods of io to 60 minulcs and it diiln 'l make a lot of differcnc1· which so long as we had just 1•nough malt'rial to gl'l Lhose kids through tlw ye<1r and the teacher through 175 lo I HO school days. We didn't recognize, or if we did, we didn't do much ahoul it, Lhat there was a lot of unnecessary rcpclilion from year lo year and LhaL the students lost their inleresL in the subject area. Nor did we g1•ncrally ab'l'CC that the teacher was having a difficulL Lime simply maintaining a reasonable probrram of presentation which hud some "real" content as well as of hcing of some inkresL lo Lhc students. In this modified scheduh• w1· will find that we have lime for activiLies that art• not possible now. We h going lo find that we have perio1ls of time• that students arcn 'l scheduled into a particular class. We can have study halls for all kids, WI'

can provide for counseling and the time Joesn 't come ouL of your class as a teacher and interrupt your program. We 'II have lime for first aid !cs.sons, we 'II have time for instruclion in the <lunger.. of alcohol, smoking, narcotics, and ahout safety. Time for teaching morals and manners. We 'II ha\e Lime for homerooms when we nccJ then, aclivity periods, production of annuals, etc. None of this will encroach upon the te•acl1ing lime of other subject areas, and it won't ncces.sarily add lo the l1urdcn of the teacher because the•y arc doing most of Lhcst• things anyway. What il would do woulJ Le Lo reduce the number of intrusions into clas.ses which arc now frequent and provide blocks of lime for kaching which arc appropriate lo the subject area anJ, which after all , is the most important factor. In addition, we have taken into consideration the span of interest and allention of children, teachers and certainly the fatigue factor of uolh. Therr's only one prolil1·m left and that's administrative. But with your courage, lime and ingenuity as well as an lll\l machine, there ar1•n 't any problems left. So let's administer.

By the way, if I have failed lo give consiJcration lo anyo111• 's subject area of leaching, please write• me and I 11 sclwdulc it, loo.

Clic.i ter R. lngib is Profes.~or, Department of Educational ti dministration, College of Education, Univer.~ity of Hawaii. Receiving liis Ed.D. from Stanford University following his M.A . from Claremont and B.A. from Pomona College, l'rofes.wr lngib has served as Director of the Ocean.fide· Carlsbad Junior College and Superintendent of Schools at Tahachap1 and Eureka, Calif ornin, and Cheyenne, Wyo· ming. Dr. lngils has held a JI!. K. Kellogg Foundation Fcllowsliip for the study of educational leadership.