Archive for December, 2011

Jefferson, His Library, and Our Schools

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Since I moved to DC five months ago friends and strangers have inundated me with recommendations of places to visit, and activities to do.  With my “to do” list continuing to grow, I decided recently to visit the Library of Congress, possibly the most oft recommended stop of all.

Touted by my tour guide as the “most beautiful building in Washington,” the Library is an intricate, meticulously designed shrine to knowledge and learning.  Upon its walls are inscribed reverent phrases from Wordsworth, Tennyson, Keats, and Shakespeare on the quest for enlightenment.  Every way I turned I saw floor-to-ceiling panels or sculptures or architectural elements promoting poetry, law, commerce, history, art, science, or religion.  Covering one wall of the entrance to the famed reading room in the east corridor of the Jefferson Building, there is a large mosaic of Minerva, the Roman god of wisdom.  She is portrayed gazing at an unfurling scroll which displays an extensive list of fields of learning, including architecture, law, statistics, sociology, botany, biography, mechanics, philosophy, zoology, etc.  I was struck by the variety of topics the library’s designers took care to highlight and extol, and by the ideal they subscribe to in their work; that each subject should be celebrated as representative of human wisdom, and given equal value, esteem, and attention.

Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the Library of Congress was that it be a universal resource, where Congress and American citizens could become knowledgeable on any subject.  He was adamant that the Library contain a comprehensive wealth of knowledge on all subjects because he believed that the American legislature needed to a grasp of a wide array of ideas and topics in order to govern effectively.  He wrote in a letter to Congress supporting the inclusion of a diversity of books that there was “no subject to which a Member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.”[1]

Jefferson also believed an educated citizenry would in turn create a powerful and prosperous nation. As interpreted by the Library of Congress, education does not simply mean that citizens should have the skills needed to read, write, calculate, etc., but that they also be able to use these skills to do things like conduct experiments, discuss literature, explore history, debate religion, and ask questions about anything and everything.

The Library of Congress is intended to be the ultimate source of information and knowledge in America. It remains a national reserve of priceless educational treasures where any citizen can come to better themselves through learning. And yet, if you took an average public school class to visit the library today, how many of the students would even know the names and references etched on the walls of the building?  Our schools and curriculums have become so bogged down, and obsessed, with ensuring students have the basic skills they need that the rich and exciting content that makes learning meaningful is being lost.  Students aren’t encouraged to learn because it is their human right and responsibility to become enlightened and informed, instead they are encouraged to learn the skills they need to pass a test.

It is time to reaffirm our national commitment to the pursuit of deep, complex, and comprehensive knowledge, and to recognize the value of all the diverse fields of study that the Library of Congress represents.  As Americans we are so fortunate to live in a country that allows, and encourages, education for all of its citizens; there are so few countries that provide this opportunity, and fewer still with the wealth of publicly available resources to do so.  It is time we made the Library’s mission to “further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people” a mission that every school, teacher, student, and citizen can embrace and fulfill.

Emily Dodd

You can learn more about the Library of Congress, and its history, here.

 



[1]Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith, September 21, 1814, Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Had It Right

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

Bear with me as I walk down memory lane and take a moment to get to my point.

Sometimes a Christmas TV special delivers more wisdom than it intended.  Like millions of other parents I watched “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” this past weekend with my kids.  They absolutely loved it.  My 5-year-old daughter was saddened when the other reindeer teased Rudolph, and touched by Clarice’s affection.  My 3-year-old son shouted “SCARY” when the Abominable Snow Monster growled over the mountaintops and swatted at Cornelius.  Both keep skipping around the house singing “Silver and Gold.”  My kids’ reaction was no different than mine when I first saw the show not long after it debuted in 1964.

What strikes anyone who watches Rudolph today is how basic this stop-motion classic is.  The set for the show appears to be made of little more than felt, foil wrappings, beads, and plastic snow.  The characters are of course puppets, made of wood, wool, faux fur, and vinyl.  If you look real closely you can see the lead wires on the puppets’ hands—and the dirt on Santa’s gloves.  This is low-tech.

Rudolph is one of a handful of 60s-era shows that continue to dominate the Christmastime TV lineup.  The others—you could name them—include  “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” “Frosty the Snowman,” and “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!”  These shows are successful, of course, because they are beautifully crafted interpretations of great stories, either from books or from song.  It is the quality of the storytelling that keeps these tales around.   They not only don’t suffer from their low-tech-ness, but their simplicity helps us to focus on the story and characters.

Even though the broadcast and cable networks generate oodles of new shows every holiday season that they hope will enter this vaunted lineup, none has made it (though Polar Express appears to be making a good run for it.).  Most of these shows are faster-paced than the old stand-byes and, needless to say, far more slick.

My point (yes, I’ve finally gotten there) is that technology is no replacement for quality content.  A great story—no matter how simply told—will still shine through.  And a poor one—no matter how aided by special effects—will still fail.

One can draw a similar parallel between curriculum and education technology.  A curriculum rich in literary, historical, artistic, and scientific knowledge can of course make good use of new technologies, as long as they are smartly used in the service of the content and skills a teacher is trying to teach.  Such a curriculum also can work unaided.  But a weak, content-free curriculum based on vacant ideas such as “reading strategies” and relying on dry, incoherent basals containing “leveled” excerpts will fail, no matter how actively one tries to animate this dead material on a SmartBoard.

 

Lynne Munson