Blog 5

1) "These children are not citizens of Illinois, New York, or California. They are (most of them are, at least) the citizens of the United States; yet the flag that hangs above their classrooms and their schools does not defend their interest when it comes to preparation for adulthood in their nation, and the words of the pledge we ask them to recite can only mock their actual experience." (Kozol 262)

I chose this particular quote because I thought it conveyed a powerful message and did so in a direct manner. It is true when here it says we aren't citizens of one state that we happen to live in, rather we are citizens of the United States and should all be held to the same standards and be given equal opportunities for jobs, education, etc. However, that is unfortunately not the case, and this is where I tend to get lost when I think about the "national" standards that students are held to for example by NCLB. In order for individuals within the same country to be looked at as individuals within the same country, there can't be the double standards and I think one of the biggest impacts on these double standards/expectations that set students apart from one another is NCLB. I also agree with the idea that some are not prepared for adulthood once out of the educational environment and again, I think ever since NCLB came along this has hindered the varios opportunities that students could be provided to enrich learning through multiple ways.

2) "Responsible citizens and especially teachers, given the power they hold in relation to hundreds of future citizens, must continually consider the source of messages, the medium used to deliver the messages, and the recipients, often themselves. A teacher without the ability to think critically or to translate that thinking into a critical voice does a disservice to teaching, to learning, to students, and to our democracy." (Anthology 212)

I liked this quote mainly because of the stance it takes on critically thinking and voicing critical ideas outward rather than keeping them to ones self when that won't really help improve or change things for the better. One of the ways I interpreted the first half of the quote which talked about messages and considering all angles of them, the sender, the recipients, and the medium, was that there always has to be an open line of communication and when there is miscommunication, it needs to be clarified for everyone involved (teachers, students, parents, etc). I think teachers who have the ability to think critically and not be hesitant to use that critical voice are the teachers who will have the strongest impact on students in that they will act as a positive role model who emphasizes open-minded thinking and putting words into action. These are the kind of teachers we need more of. Teachers who may think critically but not apply it, or who don't use critical thinking at all, are the ones who will let the students down, minimize learning opportunities, and cause our current state that we are in for education to remain the same.

3) "...a national horror hidden in plain view, as he had said. If it was a national horror, whether hidden in plain view, or, as others may believe, too obvious to be concealed but clearly seen yet somehow "disallowed" at the same time, why was there no national response?" (Kozol 240)

The tone/expression that was used in this quote was what captured my attention the most, seeing as a very simple question is asked (why was there no national response?), but a very complicated answer seems to await. There are many educational issues and acts occurring now such as NCLB, merit-based pay, race to the top, and so on, that really need attention and provisions made to them, and if not provisions, then completely wiped out. It seems that in todays school systems and even just societal issues, heads are simply turned the other way even though one if fully aware of what is going on but cannot bare to face the consequences or penalties that might in reality taunt them. This idea falls under the teachers who do think critically and are trying to implement new strategies, yet perhaps they don't want to speak out against the norm in fear that their teaching job will be taken away just like that. My question is what is considered to be a national horror? Whether or not it was an obvious problem or a minor problem just leading up to a larger concern, who has the say in determining what deserves a response?

4) "Whatever damage segregation might or might not do, the premise of our case is that the state and city can provide sufficient resources so that students in a school, even if that school is segregated, can achieve a respectable level of success." ...."Although "the line is no longer a line of state-sanctioned discrimination, it is nonetheless a de facto line of color". (Kozol 258)

I agree here with the idea of there not being a visible line of discrimination based on state laws and whatnot, but in reality there is certainly a line amongst individuals that impacts our everyday lives. The idea of privilege seems to be where all the smaller elements fall into. Whether it is admitted or acted on, on each side of that line lies different privilege for each person. It is also evident that schools don't receive an equal distribution of resources or funding to provide for all the students success. If this were the case, then why is it that, as we have read and discussed from Kozol, the inner city schools such as those in NYC, lack so much that students blatantly cry out that they are in poverty but who is there to help. The privilege walk that we did in class helped me to realize the differences amongst each person and it helped me to realize not everyone was at the same level as me or was provided with the same opportunities. This is what we need to shift away from so each students level of success doesn't depend on which side of the "de facto line of color" they are on,

5) "Like democratic societies, successful schools can't be guaranteed. The merits of letting schools try to be successful schools can't be guaranteed. The merits of letting schools try to be successful are significant. But allowing them to try requires boldness and patience-not a combination that is politically easy to sustain." (Anthology 148)

In this quote it mentions one of the major downfalls individuals are faced with as a result of either not being one whose 'voice matters' or maybe simply because they don't feel fit to speak out against those in power and those making the decisions. Why is it that the combination of boldness and patience is so politically uneasy to sustain? Is this an assumption simply because the ones whose voices are heard feel they have to maintain power and dominance without facing any confrontations along the way? This reminds me of one of our class discussions where we were told to learn to accept and walk toward confrontation rather than walk away from it. People have been walking away from confrontation with officials and "power-fulfilled" individuals for far too long, but will anything really happen if we don't face it and act on it? It is a little pessimistic to say that successful schools cannot be guaranteed and unfortunately some have come to internalize that and believe that it's true under current circumstances, but it is false. Critical thinking and teaching for the students best interest should be what matters.

6) "In thriving urban schools, everyone associated with life in the school fiercely believes that each and every child can succeed at high academic levels. This is common rhetoric but is rarely enacted in practice....Successful schools embrace a strong, shared vision and commitment to the idea that there are ways to engage in school so that everyone achieves, so long as everyone is willing to find that way." (Anthology 163/164)

It is unfortunate to have to admit that it can't be perceived by all the idea of every child being able to succeed at high academic levels. Why is it that this perfect pictured desire for all children to succeed at their highest abilities is just common rhetoric? This is why it is so important to have all individuals and leaders in a given school on the same page, committed to the students and committed to finding a way in which every student can grow and acheive goals for themselves. When talking about how a child can learn to their fullest potential, I think of using a variety of approaches to teaching, through music, art, nature, hands-on experiences, and the multiple intelligences. The problem with this is teachers aren't even alotted enough time in the day to incorporate all these creative approaches because they are teaching to the test and are basically provided an agenda which is 100% revolved around what will be on the test. Collaboration amongst teachers is definitely needed if we want students to succeed given whatever the resources there are and how it is taught.

Blog 4

1) "We are becoming increasingly aware of the influence that culture and social privileges have on epistomologies and ontologies associated with education at operational levels. And yet, education as a whole field is slow to respond in using this as a primary lens for instruction and assessment. Mainstream practices are narrow in their approach largely due to a culture of high stakes testing and accountability. For many students, education remains an experience that is dehumanizing, distant, and decontextualized." (Intro to Transformative Teaching handout p 1)

I think this quote was especially relevant and noteworthy because it directly states that even though aspects of life such as culture and social privileges are present and can be associated with education in that it can be brought into the classroom, it is still being somewhat blatantly ignored. I think this is really unfortunate and certainly more of a harm to students in the community rather than a benefit because not being exposed to different perspectives and viewpoints of each individual or group of individuals within the same community only further shelters and perhaps leads to racism or bias opinions towards one another. Classroom instruction and styles used are so limited not only as a result of this blind side towards the awareness of culture and social privilege, but also as a result of the lack of opportunities of enrichment through the arts or music for example. This particular quote also reminded me of when we went outside and the privilege walk during class. I know without a doubt it opened my eyes to alot more that was around me than I would have realized just on the 'surface' of everyday life. Physically participating in this activity and looking at different characteristics of life through the eyes of an adult says alot for how much something like this can do for young children.

2)"Education in its institutional forms is about authority, power, manipulation, and agency; it is about who decides what." ("The Benefits of Active Learning p1)

I definitely disagree with this quote, seeing as to me it describes what a traditional educator might refer to education as being. Even though we still obviously have teachers whose style is definitely very traditional, I think we are beginning to see more and more of a combination of traditional with another style, if not a complete transformation for some teachers whose perspective on education has shifted during their time as an educator. What I thought was interesting about this was that it doesn't directly say 'who' has that power, who has that authority, and who can be manipulative, rather it seems more focused on education itself instead of the educators. One of my own questions that always seem to come back to me is the same as the last part of this quote; Who exactly decides what? There are so many different decisions to be made concerning education, policies, the type of content to be taught, how it is taught, and so on. I seem to be unsure as to how/why power, in a system like education itself, can be such an important part of 'the whole', especially if we as educators and all those decision makers are supposed to collaborate, share ideas, work together to address issues and solutions, etc.

3) "Advocates of academic standards argue that standards are necessary to ensure that teachers instruct students in what the state educational agency considers the important parts of each subject. In addition, high stakes state tests linked to state standards ensure that students have learned the subject matter prescribed by the state. It is also argued that academic standards can be used to force teachers to teach more material. In turn, this will require the students to learn more". (Spring p 232)

I chose this quote not only because it further discusses high stake testing and state standards, but moreso because of the word choices used throughout. For instance, here are some of the words or phrases that stuck out to me; "prescribed" by the state, "force teachers", and "require students" to learn more. Advocates of such standards and tests apparently feel that the type of enforcement needed and support needed would call for forcing teachers to teach more and requiring students to learn more. These academic standards might be framed in a way where what is taught is extremely limited but what's worse is sometimes certain things such as art or creative approaches to learning are completely wiped from the curriculum because they aren't on the test. Another question which again seems recurring is how are we supposed to know that the high stake tests, linked to state standards, will indeed "ensure the students have learned the subject matter prescribed by the state?". Students can do well on the test but after a week of taking it forget not only content but even the skills learned or acquired to be able to successfully take the test. It could be such memorization just as well as it could be actually learning and synthezing the information.

4) "The fact that high stakes testing exerts so much control over classroom practice is evidence of the existance of hierarchies of institutional power. Indeed, high stakes tests hold so much power, because the results are tied, by policy, to rewards or sanctions, that can deeply affect the lives of students', teachers, principals, and communities. ("Critical Education-High Stakes Testing by Wayne Au p4)

So this is really what high stakes tests and standardized tests has caused education to come down to? Closing schools when students scores aren't high enough, firing teachers when their students don't pass or improve on scores from the past, providing merit pay for ONLY those teachers whose students excel on the test, and so on. I thought the quote itself sums up where education/educators currently stand and in doing so also reminds us how these tests have so much power over everything else, which further means it has a greater impact on society, students, teachers, and parents. Isn't it safe to assume that being aware of the amount of weight these tests carry and knowing/seeing first hand what is has started and continues to do to schools/communities, that we would start to think about ways to immediately try alternatives to help save communities and schools rather than destroy them? As a future teacher if I were to walk into my classroom knowing that how I taught and what I taught was going to be driven by tests and more tests, then I would automatically be not only discouraged to teach to my own beliefs but I would feel like I was the one letting my students down and automatically depriving them of a variety of different strategies and ways of learning.

5) ""The e-learning revolution has created the promise of new methods of learning and greater access to knowledge along with a whole host of problems associated with teacher training, costs, and censorship." (Spring p 237).

I thought just the idea of including technology in learning was interesting and definitely a relevant aspect of our lives today seeing as so much of our everyday life falls right into the computer! Like any other 'new/different way' of learning may do, it is expected that some faults would come along with it, which again really effect the teachers, their time, and what can be used to be taught as a result of censorship and censorship laws. Technology is important not only because it is part of our everyday lives, but also because just as this quote tell us "it has greater access to knowledge" and new methods of learning. There is so much that students can benefit from by using the computer to enhance learning, whether it be through a software program, games, the internet, etc. As far as the problems associated with this e-learning revolution, I think if it is proven to help improve at least some part of learning in the classroom then it is well worth the time to put into it.

6) "Efforts at censorship of books and methods of instruction raise important issues regarding the role of public schools in a democratic society. Democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas and the diversity of ideas. On the other hand, education is compulsory..." (Spring p 228)

I thought this was an interesting part to discuss because it reminds me even of when I was in highschool or middle school and we either needed parents to give permission to watch a particular movie or even sometimes read a particular book for instance. I can see where censorship addresses the question of public schools and what they have to do in the society we live in to not take advantage of books or way to teach based on censorship. If we are encouraged and asked to share ideas in order to gather a variety of different opinions on one matter for example, then which idea are we supposed to be following? The idea of living in a democratic society and having the right to share and voice ideas, or the idea that one must consider carefully the censorship behind their teaching practices or what they use to implement these practices. Before reading the rest of chapter 9, I never realized or stopped to think about the wide range of topics or matters that censorship laws relate to and I thought it was really interesting and useful seeing as future teachers we will need to be aware of such restrictions or liabilities.

Blog 3

1) "For lack of a better term, we refer to it simply as sham inquiry-that is, teaching practices that look like inquiry, sound like inquiry, but on closer inspection are revealed to be just as unhealthy to student learning as a steady, uniform diet of teacher telling. In its various guises, sham inquiry gives no one solace but the teacher, who, thinking she has refined her practice, continues to ignore, discount, or put aside the questions students ask in favor of those she believes are more valuable. (Canestrari & Marlowe pg 72)

Not that the reason why I chose this quote is a 'good reason', but I thought it was interesting that it seemed to put into writing the practices that I sometimes see in classrooms. I have unfortunately been in a classroom where students needs are simply ignored and not considered while instructions were given or even while students were working on certain tasks. Seeing teachers just turn their head the other way to some students, for me, explains why specific students have behavioral problems, are unmotivated to do their work, and disturb their other classmates for attention that they aren't getting from the classroom teacher. Wouldn't a "great teacher" who doesn't lose their character and sense of self when they enter their classroom, want to refine the strategies and methods they use to be able to give undivided attention to students they know need that extra help and direction? Sometimes I wonder if teachers are aware of their actions and are aware of the impacts it has on the students, or if they are not aware and conscious of the impacts as they are simply going day to day doing what they do because it's their routine and they don't like to modify/don't see the need to modify their ways.

2) "I mean, I'm going to teach junior high school."
"When you see your mother next, tell her she raised a moron. Christ! Are you going to be sorry!"
"In New York City, we don't have schools; we have pens for lost souls. Teaching is a scam, a welfare project for those who can't do anything else!". (Canestrari & Marlowe pgs. 10-11)

Reading this quote was very disturbing to me seeing as it completely bashes not only the teaching profession itself but also those who pursue careers in this field as well. I felt this quote almost tops the belief off that teachers simply aren't successful at what they do, no matter how much they time and effort they put in for their students, especially if standardized test scores are not at or perhaps even above proficiency level. I don't understand how people, and especially those who have no educational background or work in education, can have little to no respect for teachers who at some points know they are on the brinks of losing their job but that still doesn't even cause them to give up or fail their students! Given everything that teachers are faced with, from having to follow strict schedules to allot for enough test preparation time, to worrying about waking up the next day and still having their job(based on students test results), to struggling to fulfill other criteria and standards on top of test preparation, wouldn't one have a little bit of respect and praise for the teachers we have today? I know that some teachers teaching styles and beliefs may effect how they manage their classroom and what goes on inside, but even differences such as those shouldn't effect the students' ability to have the best eduaction possible with those who genuinely care about them and want them to succeed.

3) "Now, assessment is integral to learning. Good teachers give a wide variety of tests and assignments, make judgements about student work, and probe students' thinking when their answers miss the mark. Standardized tests can well be part of this constellation of assessment, but should not overwhelm it. It's important to remember how far removed standardized tests are from the cognitive give-and-take of the classroom. That's one reason why there is a debate among testing specialists as to whether a test score is really an accurate measure of learning. Yet the scores on standardized tests have become the gold standard for excellance. (Rose ch. 3 pg. 48)

This particular quote seemed to sum up most of my personal feelings on standardized tests and how they appear to be the only way students are assessed these days, regardless of any other special talents or abilities they may have. I completely agree with the fact that a variety of assessments should be given and that differentiation is key to being able to meet every students individual needs based on what/how much the teacher really knows about their students. To me, standardized tests should simply be ONE way of assessing students, but they shouldn't be the ONLY strategy and certainly shouldn't label schools, teachers, and students as failing or "at risk" if a particular score isn't met. I personally am not the greatest paper-pencil test taker and that has always been one of my weaknesses, so this is why I couldn't agree more with the question of whether or not A test score is an accurate measure of learning. These tests do not even cover a variety of topics or even subject areas, so how can they possibly be looked at as an overall definite answer to students certain abilities and level of knowledge they have? As a future teacher, I really feel that the importance of finding out levels of acheivement in specific areas of study will depend on the different ways students are assessed, both written and orally, seeing as I am not 100% again these tests, but in today's educational system these tests out-beat all other forms of assessments. Unfortunately, they are looked at as the one and only way of assessing and the standards are high for all students at all different levels, yet are expected to meet the same level of proficiency!

4) "Standards, in many places, have proven nebulous and low," he writes in a coming essay. "Accountability has turned to test-cramming and bean-counting, often limited to basic reading and math skills." ("Leading Scholar's U-Turn on School Reform Shakes up Debate" NY Times p. 2)

I chose this quote because I felt it went long with my ideas and feelings on the previously discussed quote above. I agree with the idea posed here especially because it is so specific and directly expresses that these tests ultimately only measure reading and math skills. These limitations are further proof that areas such as art and music have been completely disregarded and pretty much considered irrevelant or not important for kids development. Since schools are 'cramming' to study and prepare for these tests, time for art, music, and creativity are becoming more and more nonexistant and it is such an unfortunate sight especially for kids in elementary schools to have to lose these opportunities of enrichment through art and music, simply because it's not on the test. Schools seem to also "dumb down" their own standards simply to 'meet' state standards/national standards (NCLB). I think with all the drilling and main focus on these tests, students are really just losing motivation and their desire to do their absolute best because they are not being provided alternatives to learning that are beneficial and of interest to them.

5) Every classroom should have not merely a qualified teacher, but a great teacher. But for this to happen, we must move the definition of "qualified" back from quantity indicators and onto quality, by teaching teachers about efficacy and caring, about the ways one can empower and engage students, while allowing teachers to retain their "distinctive character". What matters at every turn is the teacher, and all the kids deserve great teachers. This need has never been so pressing." (Canestrari & Marlowe pg 117)

I liked this quote simply because it reemphasizes the importance of what kind of a classroom teacher kids deserve and how this can be mastered through teaching teachers to basically care, support, and engage students in learning on a daily basis. I really thought the last sentence of the quote was powerful because it a given fact that in today's schools there are so many teachers who look at their job as simply a job. This outlook distant's them from their students and forms a relatively big gap which doesn't allow for any form of relationship to be established nor does it build on trust and feelings of belongingness for the kids either, which is crucial for them to feel like they are cared for and have the supports they need to do well. I strongly disagree with the notion that a teacher of 25 years (quantity) has all the characteristics of a "great teacher" just because they have been in the profession for 25 years. At an individual level they may have created their beliefs on teaching and how they manage the students, but the amount of time a teacher teaches, to me, remains an unimportant fact that doesn't really accurately measure just how well of a teacher they are (based on what they provide for their students and how students feel being in the classroom everyday). This may sound like a clichee, but from past experience, teachers have their way of getting to students and those teachers who show they care and are there for the benefit of the students are the ones that leave imprints and positive motivational memories in the future for the kids.

6) "The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students' creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interest of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed or to see it transformed. The oppressors use their "humanitarianism" to preserve a profitable situation. Thus they react almost instinctively against any experiment in education which stimulates the critical faculties and is not content with a partial view of reality but always seeks out the ties which link one point to another and one problem to another." (Paul Friere The Banking Concept")

I didn't fully understand this quote but I knew it was making important/interesting points and that is a reason why I chose it. It reminded me of a traditional education/education system because it talks about not wanting to see any kinds of transformations and being 'against any experiments' that might foster or stimulate critical 'faculties'. Looking at education as "banking education" suggests a very clear cut and simple way of suggesting how the educational system really works. In reality, there certainly is not ONE problem or ONE solution to a problem, and I think to be able to solve problems that education faces in today's world then it is critical to have an open mind while allowing ideas from all different perspectives to flow in. This quote, along with the entire article for that matter, put education into the business realm and used comparisons that for me, don't justify how things really work now. The best interest of students and teachers even seem to be disregarded.

Blog 2 (continued)

6) "Urban schools, just like their counterparts in other types of communities in our country, can and must be places where children and adults thrive and are cared for and where every single child achieves meaningful success. It is happening in urban schools across the country. And not only are these schools thriving, they are offering us all a window into how our participation in the ecology of our communities is essential" (Anthology--Educational Foundations 165).

This quote seemed really powerful to me because it serves as motivation and proof that it is possible for not only urban communities but also neighboring communities to be able to promote change for the better and success for everyone. Since an "ecological approach" is based on everything being an influence on each other, such as classroom teaching, school life, family, community, society, etc., that is why it is so crucial to have all the positive participation as possible from as many individuals throughout society. I personally think this quote is supportive of a previous quote and all these ideas of working together as a community are interconnected. Seeing that there are all these different factors which impact the main "situation" at hand, when one part of the group is out of line or unsupportive to the idea of gaining success, then this just breaks the chain apart. Being in different schools myself, I have seen that when teachers colloborate, parents are involved, and students can actively voice their opinions, this is when the community can really fall together as a whole.

Blog 2

1) "Learning itself-the learning of a skill, or the enjoying of a book, and even having an idea-is now defined increasingly not as a process or preoccupation that holds satisfaction of its own but in proprietary terms, as it were the acquistion of an object or stock-option or the purchase of a piece of land. 'Taking ownership" is the accepted term, which now is used both by the kids themselves and also by their teachers. Most people like to think they 'get' ideas, 'understand' a process or 'take pleasure' in the act of digging into a good book. In the market driven classroom, children are encouraged to believe they 'own' the book, the concept, the idea. They don't engage with the knowledge; they process it" (Kozol 97).

This particular passage grabbed my attention simply because of the way these educators are referring to how/what the students are "learning", or in their terminology, "owning". Seeing as the kids are also using this term, to me, shows that the natural enjoyment and desire to learn for the fun of it has been taken away. As the quote says, most people think they "get" ideas or "understand" a process, which also shows that these people acknowledge there is room for further interpretation or explanation on what they think they "get" or "understand". The way these teachers talk about their students and their knowledge makes it sound rather closed-minded or as if they are headed down a one way road. In this respect, they are doing exactly what the quote says; processing the information, but not engaging with it! Here, the students are learning because they have no other choice, and the way in which they are being taught doesn't allow them to actually "learn" the knowledge, more like memorize and never internalize. It is such a surprise to hear the way Kozol presents teachers and how they consider their classroom as more as running a business and preparing for various "management" positions!

2) "Teachers in the elementary grades within the districts generally feel they can allow themselves the luxury of letting youngsters wander off from time to time into a subject that holds interest for them, but has no direct, or even indirect, connection with the competencies to be measured by the state. It is a different story in too many inner-city schools where deviations from a charted road set off alarm bells for the supervisory officials and where teachers who are not eternally "on task"-one of a number of such stolidly directive terms imported from the world of industry-are made to understand that they will bear the burden of responsibility if the percentile gains demanded, for example, by one of those school improvement plans are not attained within the time prescribed" (Kozol 110).

This quote jumped out to me as I was reading because for me I feel like it is such a relevant statement and is certainly a current concern in today's schools. I think it is a shame that student's who aren't meeting sufficient levels on standardized tests, more specifically referred to here as urban schools, have to lose that opportunity for "fun" or other types of engaging activities beyond sitting and preparing for a test. Not allowing students to have that chance to just interact with one another based on personal interests and whatnot is damaging for the students with respect to their social skills and other developmental characteristics. Once again, as it is presented, if these teachers do wonder "off task" then it is primarily their responsibility to be ready to deal with the consequences or be able to bring the students back up to par with everyone else. The "burden" of responsibility almost humored me. Is it really considered that inconvienant for a classroom teacher, whether or not his/her students are passing or not, to allow for some deviation, but also be able to get back on track? The way the word "burden" was used definitely makes it sound like it isn't even worth trying to deviate!

3) "Requiring African American history will be "divisive", they claim, further tearing the city apart rather than uniting it. But what kind of argument is this? Are we to believe that standard American history has been unifying? The kind of history that largely ignores the contributions and struggles of persons of color in the U.S.? The history that too often paints an image of Africa suggesting there were no signs of civilization there before whites arrived, and thus that black history doesn't begin until slavery? The kind of history that relegates black folks to one month out of the year, and even then only teaches about a few prominent figures: Dr. King, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and perhaps Rosa Parks?" (Tim Wise "Black History Course").

When I started to read this article I was actually rather surprised as to how this was as big of an issue as it was proposed to be. However, the point made about having one month a year to dedicate to "black folks" isn't enough. In doing this, I have seen from working in the elementary schools, that students are very engaged and interested in learning about people like Dr. King, Harriet Tubman, and so on, who have all been an important part of our history. I think it is important to integrate all cultures and traditions into history, because afterall, there is so much more to history as Tim Wise notes than what lies behind American history. I do see this integration though and this is a positive part of what the students learn because it further emphasizes the importance of teaching about every "point on the line".

4) "Segregation invariably results in school systems that are "seperate and unequal" because segregated schools are differently funded, with fewer resources provided to schools in poor communities and vastly superior resources provided to schools in wealthier communities. Segregation also results in students receiving differential schooling on the basis of their social class,race, and ethnicity. In addition, schools that serve students of color tend to provide curricula that are watered down and at a lower level than schools that serve primarily White students" (Anthology--Canestrari 49/50).

I chose this quote because it reminded me of one of the videos by Kozol that was watched for the discussion board. The idea of being separate but "unequal" is proven through the facts that their is unequal funding distributed between school districts, students having teachers who perhaps aren't as educated as those we may find in a wealthier neighborhood, and so on. The same question that pops into my head time after time is why does it have to happen this way? What is it that creates an unequal distribution between funds? It is so surprising to see that our schools still today face these certain faults. However, I believe that unlike in previous years, today we are more desegregated but even more segregated in terms socioeconomic status. In the conclusion of this paragraph, it was said that "desegregating schools in and of itself does not guarantee educational equity". Then what will? If problems such as these are occurring and are well known, why is it that the most popular thing to do is to simply turn ones head the other way and hope that the next person will fix it? The students shouldn't have to suffer and have their education jeopardized for something that can be helped from the guidance of teachers, parents, community, and other influential people.

5) "The teacher, students and their families, the school, or even the school district alone cannot bring about meaningful change in urban schools. But together they can create highly successful schools that ensure achievement for all students and that function as a service to the community" (Anthology--Canestrari 162).

This shorter quote immediately reminded me directly of the blog I had just read for "Bridging Differences". The notion that TEACHERS alone are not enough to make a meaningful change was not as directly stated in Bridging Differences but rather inferred. These 2 texts were almost opposite with regards to supporting the idea of everyone in the community having to work as a whole to make a meaningful change versus the community and other educational leaders being against the teachers thinking it is their fault the students are meeting standardized test scores. I know the above quote is focusing on urban schools, but this is something that holds true for any school system or even society in general that is looking to promote a meaningful change in some way shape or form. I think when teachers dont collaborate, when parents aren't involved, and when the school district isn't even aware of certain problems that might affect the students' chances of receiving equal eduacation, then once again, it is the students that suffer in the long run. However, it isn't just the students as I learned in the Bridging Differences blog; the teachers seem to have had plenty to lose too if things weren't looking up for them!

"Intelligence tests thus justified a hierarchial social structure based on measured intelligence. Within this framework democracy was viewed as a social system in which all people were given an equal chance to reach a level in society that corresponded to their individual level of intelligence" (Spring p. 35).

I found this quote from Chapter 2 of Spring and decided to include it here because I think it raised interesting thoughts and questions concerning an individual's IQ and how this is beneficial (or not) to ones' self. In my opinion, this idea suggests the total opposite of everyone having an "equal opportunity", because although one is still given the chance to project their intelligence amongst many different areas, they are still being categorized in the end, based on what they are capable of due to their suggested intelligence level. The text goes further to discuss whether "inherited native" intelligence is possible or if intelligence is based off of early learning. Looking at this idea from the perspective of a teacher, I would certainly allow room for reflection when it came down to a student's true abilities as an idividual; that is, how they perform on multiple other tasks throughout their education that isn't based solely on their intellectual abilities. There are several factors that have to be taken into account for these children which must stayclear from cultural bias and grouping based on socioeconomic status too. In agreement with the text, this must be a test that is going to abide by the terms for "equality of opporutnity" for everone, regardless.

"Still, it is all too easy to assign their primary onus of responsibility to parents in these neighborhoods. (Where were these parents educated after all? Usually in the same low-ranking schools their children now attend.) In a nation in which fairness was respected, children of the poorest and least educated mothers would receive the most extensive and most costly preschool preparation , not the least and cheapest, because children in these families need it so much more than those whose educated parents can deliver the same benefits of early learning to them in their homes" (Krozol 54).

I selected this particular quote from chapter 2 in Krozol because it caused me to think directly back to Spring's text as he touches upon family history and following family trends as well. There are similarities in their points of view on the notion that a child's future, most of the time, is shaped by parents and their race, income, level of education received, and so on. What forces society to undergo such a drastic shift in which all goals for a successful future are destroyed by such a bias and rather unequal society? This is further proof for one to be able to see how our society works in today's world; if a decision is made that benefits you and doesn't affect your financial status or well-being, then what does the decision really have to do with you? For example. all these educational reforms; If you don't have children enrolled in your school district, what satisfaction will you get from doing what you can to ensure the ongoing efforts to prevent closing failing schools and what not. Essentially, the child is not held accountable for where their parents were raised and what type of education they received, so this should certainly not impact their education and ability to strive for success.

"There is an economic discussion of schooling that we ought to hear, but rarely do......It would also include the fact that education budgets are threatened in many states, programs are being cut, and there are huge and growing differences in school expenditures. The wealthiest public schools spend two to three times more on their student's than the poorest. And this dramatic difference in institutional resources is compounded by differences in the material resources parents can provide: from private space to computers and reference tools to tutoring and other scholastic remedies and enrichments" (Rose 28).

Rose states the lack of discussion based on schools and economics and this idea can be applied towards Krozol's text as well, as he covers in chapter 2 statistical information revealing the differences from poverty=stricken cities and middle-class cities. Can the idea seen in one text to the next on equal opportunities not be just as important for resources and having what it needs to truly create an equal opportunity for all? There is quite a pattern that is created, and it seems to follow the continuing spectrum of inequalities amongst all. If it isn't a middle-class/wealthy neighborhood, then it is the poverty-stricken areas, or if it isn't the parents who can provide home schooling or full time tutors for their children then it is the parents who have children enrolled in a failing school that has little hopes of improving,; especially if the voices that are listened to don't do anything to suggest changes socially and economically. Reading the given quotation and reflecting on it from say a teacher's perspective, the programs that are cut shouldn't be the ones cut, and ones that aren't cut are usually because of the individual's who aren't affected by the unfortunate realities of what is of importance to society today as far as politics and economics are concerned.

"We educate for a number of reasons, and people have written about them since the first decades of the republic: to pass on traditions and knowledge, to prepare the young for democratic life, to foster moral and intellectual growth, to enable individual and societal economic prosperity" (Rose 32).

I chose this quote because like the others I felt some relation between the texts being discussed. These are reasons why we educate individual's, but how much are we really educating and preparing for the real world? These are qualities that shouldn't be overlooked, but also as Rose suggests, there are more factors that tie into why we should go to school and perhaps what we should take away from school. As society is constantly changing, so are the values, beliefs, and obviously standards set by government and lawmakers that must be abided by. It is hard to determine one or even two primary reasons to go to school/what should be taught not only because of the constant changes around us, but also because every child will take in a different perspective on what they are taught, therefore creating a widely diverse community. As Rose also mentions, the well-being of these children should be taken into account, but is it really? Are we more concerned with having such a structured education that there is no time to individually help develop and bring out opportunities that wouldn't be as easily identified through such a scheduled and set curriculum?

"First, school-based management is a reform that many believe holds promise. This reform shifts the control of schools from highly bureaucratic and centralized boards of education to the school itself, where teachers, parents, and administrators work cooperatively in decision making. Second, teacher empowerment, a reform closely related to school-based management, seeks to give teachers far more authority in decision making. Third, the school choice movement seeks to provide parents the right to choose the public school to send their children, rather than the traditional method in which one's school was based on neighborhood zoning patterns" (Sandovnik-The History of Education 83).

The ideas that are stated here are ideally what each school system would like to have happen, but these reforms contradict previous topics that I have come across. For example, it was clear that in "Bridging Differences" blogs teachers, parents, and especially students, had no control in the matter even though they were the ones being fully impacted by the decision, not the Mayor. In my own perspective on teaching, the roles/responsibilities teachers have with their students on a day to day basis should entitle them to have the authority to make more decisions especially involving their students. The transition from Conservative to more of a Liberal and open-minded system is beneficial for everyone; students, teachers, parents, etc. However, collaborating with other teachers and maintaining a steady line of communication with administrators and "people whose voices count", will also ensure that these reforms are mainly kept in place with alterations due to the expected changes over a short period of time. Do administrators and officials perhaps feel threatened by the equal opportunity for power and ability to make such decisions?

"Radicals, like liberals, believe that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds begin schools with unequal opportunities. Unlike liberals, however, radicals believe that the conditions that result in educational failure are caused by the economic system, not the educational system, and can only be ameliorated by changes in the political-economic structure" (Sandovnik- Exploring Education 32).

This quote struck particular interest for me because the perspective that radicals have with regards to educational failure. The changes that the radicals demand happen in order to fix such failures are adressed towards the political/economical spectrum. I was interested in this quote also because it generated thoughts about what kind of changes in the political structure would have to occur. Further in this same reading, it is given that radicals support the idea of problems being solved by educators but in a "radical" way. More liberty amongst the educators and less orders from those who are in control based on their title or job can encourage a less structured and an equally provided for society. Then, this will develop and find a spot on the political spectrum seeing as the radicals find a solution in the change of structure as mentioned above.

"It also is of value to understand what type of children, what age, what setting is most sensible for your temperament and skills. Simple mistakes like teaching children that are too young or too old can destroy promising teachers. I had a friend who was teaching first grade and having a miserable time of it. The class was out of order, the students paid no attention to what she said, and she couldn't understand what the children were talking about...(Kohl 23).

This quotation stuck out to me because finding who you are as a teacher first is a crucial step that must be taken before finding yourself in a situation that we hear about in Kohl's text. The teacher will always have that impact on a student, whether it be good or bad, and this will affect the student and how his/her attitude in education is shaped especially if the teacher is teaching at a young age such as 2nd or 3rd grade. Not teaching the appropriate grade level for yourself will not only destroy you but also the students who sense and know you are unhappy with them and they then feel like they haven't met standards that were set for them (even if they were unrealistic). The impact that a teacher has on these young students is important also because if they see that they are being given up on now, then it could be expected that this will happen in the future too. The whole notion of a teacher giving it his/her all reminds me of NCLB, behind it is essentially the teacher's obligation to do everything they possibly can in order to get the test scores at a passing level. Therefore, the simply mistake of choosing a grade level too young or too old will not only hurt you but hurt your students and put them at a disadvantage that they don't need to be at.