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.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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!
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!
Sunday, February 7, 2010
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)