"It is unfortunate that todays educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them. It is the educators duty to determine the curriculum and the students duty to study what is presented to them." As an elementary educator, I believe this stance is extremist. Educators and the public must come to a middle road. The high road and the low road are intimated in this statement. I believe the high road on this topic (from whence should curriculum come) represents a nouveau approach. Ask the students what they want to learn and study for the year; then meander, research and branch off of their interests. The low road on this topic (directly endorsed by this statement) is old fashioned and outdated. The assumptions behind this view include a magical ability by teachers to infuse reams of information, data and knowledge into students brains that then become internalized and applied by the students. In a complex and frightening society, we must look to the middle road. We must infuse the best of the high and the low roads. Current research has had a lot to say on curriculum development. Overreaching arguments defend the quality of students self-directed learning. However, in order to prepare our students for this society, we must have developed the backbone and anchor for curriculum. Content and performance standards (i.e. curricula) need to be developed by the districts educators as a map for teachers. When educators provide students with choices WITHIN the map of curriculum, students relish in the freedom and take ownership for their learning. Were we to provide students the ultimate authority in curriculum development, we would be doing an injustice not only to our students but to society as a whole. There are specific skills and abilities that need to be developed and taught -- regardless of students (or for that matter, teachers) interest. In my profession as an elementary educator and as a parent, I value the abilities to read, write and be mathematically proficient. Those students not mastering those critical skills are at a disadvantage. We see those students become destructive or depressed. I have observed students struggling with the basics become outcasts in their own little worlds. Very young outcasts grow into adult outcasts. I do NOT think it is unfortunate that todays educators emphasize students interests. It IS our duty, however, to provide the parameters for their education. We can not simply state that educators determine curriculum and students follow. This is just not reality in the classrooms. When standards and curricular maps have been developed, teachers of todays children have the responsibility (yes, the duty!) to bring life to those maps. One crucial and successful way, is to provide students variety and choices within the context of "what needs to be covered." The educator who brings curricula to life for her students and gives her students the responsibility to make choices helps to prepare our children for thriving -- not just surviving. COMMENTARY This response presents a well-developed analysis of the issue and displays strong control of the elements of writing. The essay argues in favor of a "middle road" position on the issue by analyzing the pros and cons of both teacher-determined and student-driven curricula. The argument is clear and well focused, supported with first-hand experience and the results of educational research. The writer endorses a curriculum that emphasizes strong basic skills (reading, writing, and math) and reminds the reader that the teachers ultimate responsibility should be to bring curricula to life in order to "prepare our children for thriving -- not just surviving." This essay displays a strong facility with written English language; the careful choice of words and carefully structured paragraphs help unify the structure of the argument. Overall, this response displays a strong command of academic writing skills and thus received a score of 5.
