This excerpt from a memo written by Punahou principal Win Healy in 1997 details some of the history surrounding CT instruction at Punahou, and an articulation of the original instructional goals for CT.


Critical Thinking


Prior to 1991 reviews of the graduation requirements was conducted occasionally by the Principal and Deans. Occasionally requirements were revised (e.g., "Economics" was made a requirement, JROTC was dropped as a two year requirement, Music History/ Art History/ Drama History was added as a requirement, Mathematics was raised to a three credit requirement). Some of these revisions were popular with the Trustees, the parents, and the faculty, some were not. Also, in 1969 the most extensive curricular and teaching methodology revision was initiated with the advent of the variable modular schedule, which eventually influenced the curriculum more than any revision of graduation requirements in the last fifty years. The majority of faculty did not want to change the traditional schedule under which we had been operating, and under which most American high schools continue to operate.

...Over a period of three years volunteers from the Faculty and Deans undertook the most intensive, thorough, and inclusive review of Punahou's curriculum in the past 40 years. Together, at first in large groups and later in a smaller elected group, we discussed the assumptions underlying what we teach, how we teach and learn, what students should be learning in the 21St Century, and how the Academy should make curricular decisions. I have been a part of no discussions with Deans, nor Department Heads, nor Administration, nor WASC, nor Trustees in 2020 which came close to matching the depth, thoroughness or thoughtfulness of those conversations about Punahou's curriculum.

The result was a proposal to consider a two tier curriculum, the first two years to be spent fulfilling "basics" in each department, the last two years to be spent in five "categories" of learning, including collaborative, experiential, and interdisciplinary learning experiences. Many of the faculty met in "category" groups over a semester to define these learning experiences and explore these options in depth. A town meeting was held, annual reports were devoted to eliciting opinions from faculty and information from the meetings was fed to the GRAD committee on a regular basis. In 1994-1995 the original proposal was modified extensively and presented to the faculty in an announcement from the Principal, just as every other curricular change had been presented.

What was new? First, although the final decision about graduation requirements came, as always, from a central governing group, this process which led to this decision had been far more inclusive of faculty. Second, the governing body became an elected faculty group to administer, with the Principal, the requirements for graduation. (Prior to this the governing body had been the Deans, with the Principal). Relatively modest changes were made in the number of credits required in certain disciplines. Social Studies requirements were reduced by one semester; the requirement that students take Music History or Art History, or Drama History was elimated, but the requirement in Performing Arts was increased. (Contrary to some assertions, the changes in British Literature and European and Asian History were the legitimate results of department decisions.) Finally, "new" credits were required in "critical thinking" and SECR, which credits would be completed as part of the normal requirements in disciplines, not necessarily in addition to disciplinary requirements. (Such requirements would be fulfilled by "double credit" courses, for example in an English course in American Literature which would also earn a critical thinking credit.)

The change in requirements was not voted on by the faculty at large. Requirements for graduation never had been voted on, and I had decided that during my tenure there never would be a faculty vote on such matters as graduation requirements. Instead, opinion was solicited, polls were taken, discussions were held.

The changes were not universally welcomed... There are many reasons for the opposition to graduation requirements, not the least of which is the inherent "conservatism" of a teaching faculty. It is their role in life to preserve and pass on the culture, and most of us can only pass on the culture as we learned it and how we learned it. It is also true that any reduction of credit in a given discipline will be seen by a few as disrespect towards that discipline.

Why should there be a graduation requirement in "critical thinking"? First, we emphasize that many teachers ask students to do activities which involve aspects of critical thinking. In fact, the requirement grew in part from a pedagogical shift towards involving students in constructing knowledge. Many teachers from several disciplines had been talking excitedly from the earliest discussions about successes they saw in classes in which student thinking could be enhanced (as compared didactically taught classes involving more lecture-test, "cook book" labs, repetition/drill, and apply-the-formula)...

Secondly, our early discussions looked to the future in which our students would be making decisions about knowledge which we could not anticipate. The Internet alone floods our students with quantities of information unheralded and unanticipated by those who taught us. Though high schools must still be founded upon acquiring knowledge formulated in the past, we felt that some emphasis should be given to systematically modeling, articulating, and practicing a process of thinking which could be used, for example, to evaluate the flood of information, opinion, and theory which we anticipate in the 21st Century.

We believed that we should teaching students the skills of thoughtfulness, logical decision making, anticipatory analysis, and discrimination necessary to the leadership roles they expect to take after college, regardless of whether colleges "require" such skills. Finally, some were becoming aware of new research in learning which looked at multiple intelligences and the enhanced ability to remember information which is learned mindfully, with an awareness of purpose and context.

Several teachers disagree with our assumptions about the future and about the legitimate purposes of a high school education. We who are devoting an amazing amount of time to developing critical thinking courses respect those teachers; we do not seek to significantly reduce what some are calling "content driven courses." Primarily, we are working to modify English, History, and Science courses already required or approved within our departments with the goal of helping students to become better thinkers as well as to learn English, History, Science, and hopefully Mathematics.

How have we defined "critical thinking"? We believe that student thinking can be enhanced, deepened, improved if we as teachers focus our and their attention on two interrelated dimensions of thinking. The first dimension consists of the elements of thinking or reasoning; the second dimension consists of intellectual standards by which we (at first) measure their thinking. Ultimately, our goal is that students learn to measure their own thinking according to rigorous standards. This means that we as teachers must articulate, practice, and "teach" the elements of thinking in a conscious, thoughtful, meaningful manner. And it means that we must become knowledgeable and confident in applying clear standard for thinking.

Although most of us engaged in this endeavor had used certain elements of thinking in our classrooms prior to the beginning of this new work, all of us are amazed by the challenge this work entails. We must rethink all that we have done, not so much changing or even reducing the contexts and content of our courses, as in changing our approaches, our methods, our assignments, our questions, and especially our assessments. It is exhausting but challenging work, the most meaningful work in curriculum in which I have ever been engaged.