Sunday, June 7, 2009
School Funding: Ohio
School Funding: Ohio
School funding is a complicated and somewhat confusing issue.
According to the Plain Dealer which cited the Ohio Department of Education there is a variance of per pupil spending of $13,000. Keystone Local School district spends $7,381 and Beachwood spends 21,099 dollars per pupil. Where does this money currently come from? According to Ohio’s Current School Funding System, “Most states, including Ohio, fund schools through a combination of state, local, and federal funds. Federal funds make up only about 8% of the total. While it is a major portion of the state's budget, state spending for schools represents 46%.The remaining 46% of funding for schools come from local taxpayers.” First the state determines how much it should cost to educate a child with no special needs. That amount is currently set at $5,732 in the Ohio. This set amount of money is based on several factors including, average class size, average teacher salaries, average support staff salaries, and building maintenance and overhead. This is referred to as the foundation amount. A portion of this foundation amount is paid by the locality. This local portion is generally equal to how much a district would raise with a 2.3% property tax. In addition the state provides supplemental dollars for educational services which are considered to be beyond basics.
Supplemental funds for special education, vocational education, and transportation costs (requires a local match.)
Poverty Based Assistance to help schools with additional costs they may incur for educating economically disadvantaged students
Parity aid to offset differences in school districts' ability to obtain local dollars from property taxes (beyond the required local share)
Finally, a guarantee provision (known as transitional aid) provides that each school district should receive no less state revenue in the current year than it received in the preceding year. (Ohio’s Current School Funding System)
As we all know this system has been declared unconstitutional four separate times, most recently in 2002. Ohio schools have been operating as Unconstitutional for 15 years. The major flaws in the current system include: heavy reliance on property taxes, inequities amongst school districts, not tied to effective strategies, and routinely leaves districts scrambling for dollars, according to Ohio’s Current School Funding System. There currently does not exist a formula which details how much it costs to provide an education to a regular education student, let alone a student with special needs or one who is deemed disadvantaged. One model that is being considered is the Evidence based model for costing out. This model is being used in Arkansas and Kentucky and is advocated by Governor Strickland. The goal is to bring all students up to state standards using scientific based practices. According to School Funding Matters, “As a relatively newer model, the evidence-based approach (or the expert judgment approach), relies on research into effective educational practices and the judgment of experts who have developed or analyzed these practices to determine appropriate levels of spending. According to Governor Strickland’s proposed budget the state portion of education would rise to 56 percent by 2017. One opponent of Strickland’s plan to revamp the school funding and practices in Ohio is John Hill. He claims: Ohio needs an easy flow of people and money from less to more productive uses. A fair comparison of alternative uses of funds, incentives for innovation, and performance based accountability. The flaws that Hill finds with Strickland plan are: It ties up funds at the school and district levels and mandates spending on programs that have nothing to do with education, no provisions encouraging trade-offs between staffing and other uses of money, no provisions for experimenting with new approaches to instruction and deliberately tilting the playing field against charter schools and on-line schools, and no careful assessment of student achievement results of using money one way versus another.
The question I would like to pose is whose plan do you feel would work best the current proposed plan by Governor Strickland or the type of plan proposed by John Hill in Ohio at the Crossroads? What are some of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each?
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Issue #20
Issue #20 Should Alternative Teacher Training be Encouraged?
Yes: Robert Holland, from “How to Build a Better Teacher,” Policy Review (April & May 2001)
“Holland argues that current programs for teacher certification are inadequate, especially given the growing shortage of teachers” (341).
Holland feels that there are two major issues facing education. He states there is a shortage of teachers and that the teachers we have are lacking in quality. Holland discusses the three different ways that he thinks teacher preparation could be enhanced. He discusses value-added assessment and the idea of placing the professional preparation of teachers under the control of one centralized body (344). He also briefly touches on the idea of teachers coming from different backgrounds and teaching what they are experts on (349-50).
Holland talks about William Saunders who developed the idea of value-added assessment. Saunders created an elaborate formula to test the effectiveness of teachers, which he first implemented in Tennessee (344). Through his assessments he is able to identify which teachers are highly effective and which are lacking. “No excuses” schools are able to demonstrate the effectiveness of highly qualified educators through the schools achievement rates of students from low socio-economic statuses (345). The principals in the “no excuses” schools credit teacher success to high dedication, coming in early, staying late and offering extra tutoring opportunities (345). Through value-added assessments principals would be able to weed out undesirables in the profession without being held to the practice of tenure (344).
A centralization of overseeing all teacher preparation is what the unions would like to see. The NEA would like to strip the states of their separate educating and licensing procedures and replace them with a uniform set of national criteria (346-49). The NEA has close links with the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF), an organization which would like to see teacher licensing controlled by private organizations. NCTAF would like to see boards set up in each state to keep all the states in tune with national criteria and for all teachers to become master teachers by becoming certified in professional teaching standards by a national board (346).
The last approach Holland mentions is allowing people to teach that have not been trained as teachers but that are masters of a certain subject area (350). In this way talented people that are really excited about their subject could pass that enthusiasm on to the children. In closing Holland seems to think that a combination of this type of recruiting of teachers along with the value-added piece might be the best bet for evaluating and reforming a teacher’s effectiveness.
No: Linda Darling-Hammond, from “How Teacher Education Matters,” Journal of Teacher Education (May/June 2000)
“Educational professor Linda Darling-Hammond offers evidence of failure among alternative programs and responds to criticism of standard professional preparation” (341)
Linda Darling-Hammond represents the flip side of this argument. She believes that teachers are best taught in a school of education. She states that the current discontent in teacher preparation can best be fixed by strengthening current teacher education programs (353). Hammond claims that the research points out that the idea of alternative education for teachers is detrimental to the students (355). She further contends that teachers that come from other fields or receive abbreviated training tend to leave the profession at alarming rates (354).
Hammond is an advocate for schools that have added a fifth year to their teacher education program. These schools allow the teaching candidate to devote the fifth year strictly to preparation for teaching. She mentions that many foreign countries have required additional years of study for education students for many years (357). Statistics seem to show that graduates of the extended programs are not only extremely satisfied with their level of preparation, but also regarded as highly competent by their co-workers (358). Hammond believes that while many people may be masters of a subject they cannot therefore necessarily be teachers of that subject. She contends that teachers need to complete an education program to be the most effective teacher possible (359).
In our own class we have several students that do not have education degrees. Do you think that these students will be able to teach as effectively as those with education degrees? Why or why not?
Yes: Robert Holland, from “How to Build a Better Teacher,” Policy Review (April & May 2001)
“Holland argues that current programs for teacher certification are inadequate, especially given the growing shortage of teachers” (341).
Holland feels that there are two major issues facing education. He states there is a shortage of teachers and that the teachers we have are lacking in quality. Holland discusses the three different ways that he thinks teacher preparation could be enhanced. He discusses value-added assessment and the idea of placing the professional preparation of teachers under the control of one centralized body (344). He also briefly touches on the idea of teachers coming from different backgrounds and teaching what they are experts on (349-50).
Holland talks about William Saunders who developed the idea of value-added assessment. Saunders created an elaborate formula to test the effectiveness of teachers, which he first implemented in Tennessee (344). Through his assessments he is able to identify which teachers are highly effective and which are lacking. “No excuses” schools are able to demonstrate the effectiveness of highly qualified educators through the schools achievement rates of students from low socio-economic statuses (345). The principals in the “no excuses” schools credit teacher success to high dedication, coming in early, staying late and offering extra tutoring opportunities (345). Through value-added assessments principals would be able to weed out undesirables in the profession without being held to the practice of tenure (344).
A centralization of overseeing all teacher preparation is what the unions would like to see. The NEA would like to strip the states of their separate educating and licensing procedures and replace them with a uniform set of national criteria (346-49). The NEA has close links with the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF), an organization which would like to see teacher licensing controlled by private organizations. NCTAF would like to see boards set up in each state to keep all the states in tune with national criteria and for all teachers to become master teachers by becoming certified in professional teaching standards by a national board (346).
The last approach Holland mentions is allowing people to teach that have not been trained as teachers but that are masters of a certain subject area (350). In this way talented people that are really excited about their subject could pass that enthusiasm on to the children. In closing Holland seems to think that a combination of this type of recruiting of teachers along with the value-added piece might be the best bet for evaluating and reforming a teacher’s effectiveness.
No: Linda Darling-Hammond, from “How Teacher Education Matters,” Journal of Teacher Education (May/June 2000)
“Educational professor Linda Darling-Hammond offers evidence of failure among alternative programs and responds to criticism of standard professional preparation” (341)
Linda Darling-Hammond represents the flip side of this argument. She believes that teachers are best taught in a school of education. She states that the current discontent in teacher preparation can best be fixed by strengthening current teacher education programs (353). Hammond claims that the research points out that the idea of alternative education for teachers is detrimental to the students (355). She further contends that teachers that come from other fields or receive abbreviated training tend to leave the profession at alarming rates (354).
Hammond is an advocate for schools that have added a fifth year to their teacher education program. These schools allow the teaching candidate to devote the fifth year strictly to preparation for teaching. She mentions that many foreign countries have required additional years of study for education students for many years (357). Statistics seem to show that graduates of the extended programs are not only extremely satisfied with their level of preparation, but also regarded as highly competent by their co-workers (358). Hammond believes that while many people may be masters of a subject they cannot therefore necessarily be teachers of that subject. She contends that teachers need to complete an education program to be the most effective teacher possible (359).
In our own class we have several students that do not have education degrees. Do you think that these students will be able to teach as effectively as those with education degrees? Why or why not?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Health Issues in Education
A very current education issue has to do with the health of American children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “roughly 17 percent of school-age children are obese, triple the rate in 1980”. “Obesity increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and other chronic illnesses” (Abbott, 1). Some states, such as Iowa, have taken big steps to combat junk food in schools. New revisions to Iowa’s Healthy Kids Act will take effect July 2010. Some of the rules say “soda is off-limits to students unless they bring it themselves, fruit and vegetable juices can’t have added sweeteners, and soda, nachos and cheese sauce, chocolate chip cookies, brownies, French fries, and potato chips can’t be sold in schools”. “The rules target snacks sold in school vending machines and a la carte stands, which have become popular alternatives to traditional school lunches for students and money makers for schools” (Des Moines Register, 1).
Author Monica Bell of Facing Up to the Obesity Problem talks about how charter schools might help this problem. Bell states that for obese kids in public schools, the “stigma makes it hard to thrive academically or to adopt healthier habits” (Bell, 1). She thinks that it would be “virtually impossible for the public education system to provide enough funding for regular schools to tackle childhood obesity”. “Schools that targeted obese kids could teach them better habits and shield them from constant embarrassment, and could also empower these young people to excel” (Bell, 3). Sounds promising, right?
Public schools are having trouble keeping up with not only the rising cost of food in general, but also the “federally mandated ‘wellness policies’ that require schools to offer healthier food options for lunch” (Samuels, 2). This is forcing “many meals directors to ask their school boards to consider raising prices to keep up with the cost of the food that is going on the plate” (Samuels, 1). “Federal reimbursement rates are not enough to match the price of a school lunch”, and “districts make up the difference out of their own budgets” (Samuels, 3). Along with $100 million included in the stimulus package for school cafeteria equipment, while in the Senate President Obama proposed a budget that included a $1-billion-a-year increase for child nutrition (QSR, 2).
So, I would like to get everyone’s opinion on this issue with a few discussion questions:
(1) How accountable for children’s health should public schools be?
(2) With all the other serious issues out there dealing with the actual education part of schools, should federal money be going toward health and nutrition?
(3) What do you think about the charter school idea posed by Monica Bell, is this a form of segregation?
Overall Safety for Everyone in American Schools
We have a different type of assignment with school safety and violence compared to the various other readings with two opposing views on issues from two authors. This assignment is to read nine various articles including a large PDF file that is over 160 pages. To make this assignment easier for everyone, I will review each article in an outline form in the same order given to us through Dr. Scott and the Angel System.
There are nine articles that relate to school violence, cyberbullying, teacher and student safety, and various statistics on the subject. When we think of school violence, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Columbine? Well, school violence started in 1764 when four Lenape American Indian warriors entered a schoolhouse in Franklin County, (near-present day Greencastle) Pennsylvania and shot and scalped 10 children of white settlers and their teacher.
The history of school violence is overwhelming and to review the lengthy list of incidents, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks
I realize that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information, but the outline is rather extensive and thorough and would be difficult to edit these historical facts.
The following is an outline for your convenience of each of the nine articles assigned:
A. "Lessons Shifted From Tragedy at Columbine," by Debra Viadero
1. This is the tenth anniversary (April 20, 1999) of the Columbine High School massacre at the Jefferson County, Colorado.
2. There is no single profile of a school shooter.
3. Peter Langman, a psychologist who studied 10 school gunmen, including the Columbine youths, in his book, "Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters."
4. "You can't assume that a school shooter is going to look like a kid in a trench coat, who has no friends, and skulking down the halls silently." Peter Langman
5. There are several other psychotic tendencies that should be reviewed, for example in the case of Kipland P. Kinkel, a 15 year-old who shot 27 people at his Springfield, Oregon high school in 1998. Kipland heard voices and believed China was going to invade the United States. Kinkel's parents lied to police about his access to guns, and the police did not follow up with due process in the investigation because his parents were teachers.
6. Three other gunmen profiled unrelated to Columbine were emotionally and physically abused, had substance abusing parents.
7. School gunmen "do not primarily act in retaliation for constant bullying that they have endured at their schools."
8. Harris and Kiebold tormentors were one year older and no longer attending Columbine when the attacks took place in April 1999. Langman states, " but it's hard to understand their attack as revenge from harassment." "It was really a terrorist attack and they wanted to go down in history for causing the most deaths in U.S. history."
9. Rural schools are real public institution that touches the whole community according to Katherine S. Newman, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University compared to urban schools that do not see rampage shooting, because schools in urban areas are "not as important."
10. Students are the first line of defense in avoiding school violence. In 2005, a 16-year-old who murdered eight at his high school and two others at his grandfather's home. 39 students had some prior knowledge of the plans.
11. After the peak years of the rampage-style attacks between 1997 to 1999, students began to take any threats seriously and reported them to adults.
B. "New Statistics Published on Campus Crime," by Debra Viadero
1. In the 2006-07 school year there were 27 homicides on K-12 school campuses, which was an increase from the 19 in-school murders in the previous year. This stat is less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides for that year.
2. This article also talks about theft among young people in school and away from school.
C. "Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008 "/ PDF File
1. In 2006, students between 12-18 --> 1.7 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school, including 909,500 thefts and 767,000 violent crimes.
2. Eight per-cent of secondary school teachers reported being threatened with injury by a student than elementary school teachers at six per-cent.
3. This PDF has several different stats on many different levels of school violence.
D. "School Crime Drops 17 Percent in D.C." The Washington Examiner
1. "Crime and violent incidents are down in D.C. Public Schools, but officials with the teachers union say they don't believe the statistics."
2. Teachers within the D.C. area reported to their union president by indicating that discipline was worse and not improving in 2008.
E. "Districts Take Action to Stem Violence Aimed at Teachers," by Vaishali Honawar
1. This article talks about "persistently dangerous" schools with students leaving along with state and federal funding. Once again, which numbers do you believe? Some think that school administrators are under reporting school violence to avoid the label and the lack of funding.
2. Telephone hotlines set-up for teachers to report instances of attacks against them in Philadelphia.
3. Train teachers to be proactive in identifying students that could be potential threats.
4. In New York City, school crime is down, serious incidents are down, and assaults on school personnel are down because the district is looking at the climate and the culture of each school and trying to create a climate that is supportive.
5. Peer to peer solutions to problems within the school. Training the students.
6. No support from Administration when a teacher is assaulted. It is the teacher's fault!
F. "Web Watch" "More News on Gun-Toting Texas Teachers"
1. North Texas hamlet of Harrold school board approved a policy to let teachers carry concealed weapons in the classroom/school to protect themselves.
2. This is a short article, but the comments to the post are very interesting in defending and condemning the decision.
3. If the teachers are carry guns then it will help in the police response time to a potential shooting, thereby saving lives.
4. Once the police arrives, how will they know who are the "bad guys" with all those guns in the hands of both teachers and students?
5. There is a comment from a petite teacher that looks seventeen and she would worry if she had a gun, they (aggressive student(s)) would overpower her, take her gun and shoot her.
6. If a student does have a gun and is walking the halls, he might think twice if he knew that a well trained teacher(s) had a gun and would be able to defend himself/herself (teacher) and their students, thereby saving lives.
G. "Cleveland Schools Faulted on Climate," by Christina A. Samuels
1. In response to the school shooting in Cleveland in August, a research group from Washington noted that there were harsh and inconsistent punishments in schools, poor adult role modeling, and weak family-school connection.
2. 48% of the almost 52,000 student district responded that they worry about crime and violence in school, and almost 43% reported that students are threatened or bullied at their high school.
H. "Digital Education" Tech Topic and Trends in K-12
1. Effective January 1, California will allow school districts to punish students for cyberbullying.
2. This stems from the case of 13 year old Megan Meier who commited suicide after a twisted case involving another teen's mother and MySpace.
3. A Pew Internet study in 2007 showed about 13% of students had suffered based on a rumor being spread about them online and 13% said they have been threatened via a text message, email, and/or instant message.
I. "Facebook, Take 2: Cyberbullying" by Nancy Flynn
1. The article starts with a mother talking about her first experience with Facebook with her small group of sixth grade girls.
2. First experience with cyberbullying dealing with Facebook.
3. Peer pressure: girls allowing to ("had to") invite other girls as "friends" onto their Facebook knowing very well the girl they invited will cause a fight. It is a status symbol to claim the high number of friends you have on Facebook.
4. Nine states have cyberbullying laws to protect children from being harassed and some states have taken action against cyberbullying beyond the school grounds.
5. In 2007, The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed some cyberbullying laws, claiming that school officials are violating the students' First Amendment rights.
6. The rules and regulations concerning cyberbullying within a school district is "contractual" and not a constitutional issue.
J. The Question
Since Columbine 1999, there has been 43 deaths related to high school violence in America. This violence is not unique to America, it is happening all across the globe. The number of deaths reported above does not include the number of deaths reported in primary schools or on the college level.
School violence has been with us since 1764 to present. Many children have been killed or injured. Teachers are being assaulted and brutally injured as well. There are statistics, experts reporting their findings, experts doubting the statistics and no matter what their conclusions are, children are still being killed in their school. Now we have Facebook, texting, and the internet as additional tools to bully and threaten other students. It is sad to say, but American school violence will never stop, but hopefully we can reduce the events to very small percentages
Do you think culture and climate of a school has a direct affect on school violence? How do you gage and/or change a culture and climate within a school that is "persistently dangerous?"
There are nine articles that relate to school violence, cyberbullying, teacher and student safety, and various statistics on the subject. When we think of school violence, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Columbine? Well, school violence started in 1764 when four Lenape American Indian warriors entered a schoolhouse in Franklin County, (near-present day Greencastle) Pennsylvania and shot and scalped 10 children of white settlers and their teacher.
The history of school violence is overwhelming and to review the lengthy list of incidents, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks
I realize that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information, but the outline is rather extensive and thorough and would be difficult to edit these historical facts.
The following is an outline for your convenience of each of the nine articles assigned:
A. "Lessons Shifted From Tragedy at Columbine," by Debra Viadero
1. This is the tenth anniversary (April 20, 1999) of the Columbine High School massacre at the Jefferson County, Colorado.
2. There is no single profile of a school shooter.
3. Peter Langman, a psychologist who studied 10 school gunmen, including the Columbine youths, in his book, "Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters."
4. "You can't assume that a school shooter is going to look like a kid in a trench coat, who has no friends, and skulking down the halls silently." Peter Langman
5. There are several other psychotic tendencies that should be reviewed, for example in the case of Kipland P. Kinkel, a 15 year-old who shot 27 people at his Springfield, Oregon high school in 1998. Kipland heard voices and believed China was going to invade the United States. Kinkel's parents lied to police about his access to guns, and the police did not follow up with due process in the investigation because his parents were teachers.
6. Three other gunmen profiled unrelated to Columbine were emotionally and physically abused, had substance abusing parents.
7. School gunmen "do not primarily act in retaliation for constant bullying that they have endured at their schools."
8. Harris and Kiebold tormentors were one year older and no longer attending Columbine when the attacks took place in April 1999. Langman states, " but it's hard to understand their attack as revenge from harassment." "It was really a terrorist attack and they wanted to go down in history for causing the most deaths in U.S. history."
9. Rural schools are real public institution that touches the whole community according to Katherine S. Newman, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University compared to urban schools that do not see rampage shooting, because schools in urban areas are "not as important."
10. Students are the first line of defense in avoiding school violence. In 2005, a 16-year-old who murdered eight at his high school and two others at his grandfather's home. 39 students had some prior knowledge of the plans.
11. After the peak years of the rampage-style attacks between 1997 to 1999, students began to take any threats seriously and reported them to adults.
B. "New Statistics Published on Campus Crime," by Debra Viadero
1. In the 2006-07 school year there were 27 homicides on K-12 school campuses, which was an increase from the 19 in-school murders in the previous year. This stat is less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides for that year.
2. This article also talks about theft among young people in school and away from school.
C. "Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008 "/ PDF File
1. In 2006, students between 12-18 --> 1.7 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school, including 909,500 thefts and 767,000 violent crimes.
2. Eight per-cent of secondary school teachers reported being threatened with injury by a student than elementary school teachers at six per-cent.
3. This PDF has several different stats on many different levels of school violence.
D. "School Crime Drops 17 Percent in D.C." The Washington Examiner
1. "Crime and violent incidents are down in D.C. Public Schools, but officials with the teachers union say they don't believe the statistics."
2. Teachers within the D.C. area reported to their union president by indicating that discipline was worse and not improving in 2008.
E. "Districts Take Action to Stem Violence Aimed at Teachers," by Vaishali Honawar
1. This article talks about "persistently dangerous" schools with students leaving along with state and federal funding. Once again, which numbers do you believe? Some think that school administrators are under reporting school violence to avoid the label and the lack of funding.
2. Telephone hotlines set-up for teachers to report instances of attacks against them in Philadelphia.
3. Train teachers to be proactive in identifying students that could be potential threats.
4. In New York City, school crime is down, serious incidents are down, and assaults on school personnel are down because the district is looking at the climate and the culture of each school and trying to create a climate that is supportive.
5. Peer to peer solutions to problems within the school. Training the students.
6. No support from Administration when a teacher is assaulted. It is the teacher's fault!
F. "Web Watch" "More News on Gun-Toting Texas Teachers"
1. North Texas hamlet of Harrold school board approved a policy to let teachers carry concealed weapons in the classroom/school to protect themselves.
2. This is a short article, but the comments to the post are very interesting in defending and condemning the decision.
3. If the teachers are carry guns then it will help in the police response time to a potential shooting, thereby saving lives.
4. Once the police arrives, how will they know who are the "bad guys" with all those guns in the hands of both teachers and students?
5. There is a comment from a petite teacher that looks seventeen and she would worry if she had a gun, they (aggressive student(s)) would overpower her, take her gun and shoot her.
6. If a student does have a gun and is walking the halls, he might think twice if he knew that a well trained teacher(s) had a gun and would be able to defend himself/herself (teacher) and their students, thereby saving lives.
G. "Cleveland Schools Faulted on Climate," by Christina A. Samuels
1. In response to the school shooting in Cleveland in August, a research group from Washington noted that there were harsh and inconsistent punishments in schools, poor adult role modeling, and weak family-school connection.
2. 48% of the almost 52,000 student district responded that they worry about crime and violence in school, and almost 43% reported that students are threatened or bullied at their high school.
H. "Digital Education" Tech Topic and Trends in K-12
1. Effective January 1, California will allow school districts to punish students for cyberbullying.
2. This stems from the case of 13 year old Megan Meier who commited suicide after a twisted case involving another teen's mother and MySpace.
3. A Pew Internet study in 2007 showed about 13% of students had suffered based on a rumor being spread about them online and 13% said they have been threatened via a text message, email, and/or instant message.
I. "Facebook, Take 2: Cyberbullying" by Nancy Flynn
1. The article starts with a mother talking about her first experience with Facebook with her small group of sixth grade girls.
2. First experience with cyberbullying dealing with Facebook.
3. Peer pressure: girls allowing to ("had to") invite other girls as "friends" onto their Facebook knowing very well the girl they invited will cause a fight. It is a status symbol to claim the high number of friends you have on Facebook.
4. Nine states have cyberbullying laws to protect children from being harassed and some states have taken action against cyberbullying beyond the school grounds.
5. In 2007, The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed some cyberbullying laws, claiming that school officials are violating the students' First Amendment rights.
6. The rules and regulations concerning cyberbullying within a school district is "contractual" and not a constitutional issue.
J. The Question
Since Columbine 1999, there has been 43 deaths related to high school violence in America. This violence is not unique to America, it is happening all across the globe. The number of deaths reported above does not include the number of deaths reported in primary schools or on the college level.
School violence has been with us since 1764 to present. Many children have been killed or injured. Teachers are being assaulted and brutally injured as well. There are statistics, experts reporting their findings, experts doubting the statistics and no matter what their conclusions are, children are still being killed in their school. Now we have Facebook, texting, and the internet as additional tools to bully and threaten other students. It is sad to say, but American school violence will never stop, but hopefully we can reduce the events to very small percentages
Do you think culture and climate of a school has a direct affect on school violence? How do you gage and/or change a culture and climate within a school that is "persistently dangerous?"
Issue 11: Has the Supreme Court Reconfigured American Education?
Issue 11 titled, “Has the Supreme Court Reconfigured American Education?” presented two crucial viewpoints pertaining to the value of education:
“Professor of education Charles L. Glenn argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is an immediate antidote to the public school’s secularist philosophy.” (Noll, p. 182)
“Professor of government Paul E. Peterson contends that the barricades against widespread use of vouchers in religious schools will postpone any lasting effects.” (Noll, p. 182)
Who’s to say who’s right at this point without some background information. The Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris case focuses on whether the First Amendment prohibition against Congress establishing religion prevents a state from providing tuition aid as part of a general assistance program to low-income parents and authorizing them to use that aid to enroll their children in a private school of their own choosing, without regard to whether the school is religiously affiliated. Many critical Supreme Court decisions have recognized and supported state and federal programs that give public funds directly to individuals who then may choose from any number of programs—private or public—to meet child-care needs, social-service demands, even educational improvement.
Supporting the issue, Glenn goes on to state, “The case for charter schools, vouchers and other forms of ”marketized” education rest only on educational performance but also on the claims of freedom of conscience. Parents have a fundamental right –written into the various international covenants protecting human rights – to choose the schooling that will shape their children’s view of the world.” (Noll, p. 186)
In my opinion, I feel The Supreme Court is making it very difficult for parents to choose what is best for their child when it comes to education. After all, doesn’t the saying, “Momma knows best” have any effect anymore?
Throughout my reading, I began to see similarities in the overall issue this week that reminds us of our issue last week on segregation in the schools. Is it evident we see differences now that we are in a different century than when segregation evolved? We do see the differences but as Peterson stated, “Much of these practical differences may separate Zelman from Brown, one powerful similarity remains: like the Court’s framed ruling against segregation in the schools, the decision to allow vouchers means much more for black students and their families than for other Americans. (Noll, p. 195) I disagree that only black students are benefiting from vouchers because the school I work at has predominately white and Hispanic students. I support the use of vouchers and believe they are helping those students receive an education no matter where they live or the story behind where they come from. After all, parents and educators are always keeping in mind the best interest of child, I feel our education system could drastically improve if the Supreme Court would only have the same view point on education as we do.
Here’s the question I want to propose from this issue: Whose view point do you support when it comes to reconfiguring American Education and why? (Think about the overall issue, do you feel the restrictions the Supreme Court has set on education to be unconstitutional? Are vouchers helping students succeed or are they segregating students from the community?)
“Professor of education Charles L. Glenn argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is an immediate antidote to the public school’s secularist philosophy.” (Noll, p. 182)
“Professor of government Paul E. Peterson contends that the barricades against widespread use of vouchers in religious schools will postpone any lasting effects.” (Noll, p. 182)
Who’s to say who’s right at this point without some background information. The Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris case focuses on whether the First Amendment prohibition against Congress establishing religion prevents a state from providing tuition aid as part of a general assistance program to low-income parents and authorizing them to use that aid to enroll their children in a private school of their own choosing, without regard to whether the school is religiously affiliated. Many critical Supreme Court decisions have recognized and supported state and federal programs that give public funds directly to individuals who then may choose from any number of programs—private or public—to meet child-care needs, social-service demands, even educational improvement.
Supporting the issue, Glenn goes on to state, “The case for charter schools, vouchers and other forms of ”marketized” education rest only on educational performance but also on the claims of freedom of conscience. Parents have a fundamental right –written into the various international covenants protecting human rights – to choose the schooling that will shape their children’s view of the world.” (Noll, p. 186)
In my opinion, I feel The Supreme Court is making it very difficult for parents to choose what is best for their child when it comes to education. After all, doesn’t the saying, “Momma knows best” have any effect anymore?
Throughout my reading, I began to see similarities in the overall issue this week that reminds us of our issue last week on segregation in the schools. Is it evident we see differences now that we are in a different century than when segregation evolved? We do see the differences but as Peterson stated, “Much of these practical differences may separate Zelman from Brown, one powerful similarity remains: like the Court’s framed ruling against segregation in the schools, the decision to allow vouchers means much more for black students and their families than for other Americans. (Noll, p. 195) I disagree that only black students are benefiting from vouchers because the school I work at has predominately white and Hispanic students. I support the use of vouchers and believe they are helping those students receive an education no matter where they live or the story behind where they come from. After all, parents and educators are always keeping in mind the best interest of child, I feel our education system could drastically improve if the Supreme Court would only have the same view point on education as we do.
Here’s the question I want to propose from this issue: Whose view point do you support when it comes to reconfiguring American Education and why? (Think about the overall issue, do you feel the restrictions the Supreme Court has set on education to be unconstitutional? Are vouchers helping students succeed or are they segregating students from the community?)
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Issue 7 – Has Resegregation Diminished the Impact of Brown?
Like all other educational issues, this one is very complicated. In order to answer the question, you have to understand the history of desegregation. I looked up additional information on the History Channel website and found the following information. The first major event happened in 1896 in the case Plessey v. Fergusen where it was ruled that “separate but equal” was constitutional according to the 14th amendment. In 1954, this ruling was reversed in Brown v. Board of Education. However, it was very difficult for the federal government to enforce this law. In 1957, the “Little Rock Nine” brought attention to the struggle of true desegregation. The Arkansas governor tried to send in the National Guard to STOP the nine African American students from entering Central High School. Not until President Eisenhower and the federal government stepped in by sending the National Guard and Army to protect the students, were they able to safely enter. The 1960s brought President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act, which helped increase the desegregation movement in America.
So the question is: Has Resegregation diminished the impact of Brown? Gary Orfield, Erica D. Frankenberg, and Chungmei Lee say “Nearly half a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) initiated decades of progress in the struggle to desegregate public schools. But now that progress has been reversed: Segregation has been increasing almost everywhere for a decade.” On the other side, William G. Wraga writes, “Although desegregation has yet to be satisfactorily achieved and gains toward that end stalled during the 1990s – halted by federal court decisions – the impact of the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision remains significant.”
I thought it was very interesting to read about how different diversity in America is today compared to the 1960s. Latinos are quickly becoming one of the largest minority groups and diversity is not isolated to the west and south anymore. The most segregated group by race and income is the Latinos. According to the The Civil Rights Project in 2002, “As both Latino and African American enrollments outpace the growth of white enrollment, every region is becoming more heavily minority.”
Orfield, Frankenberg, and Lee feel that court actions since the 1970s have caused the progress of desegregation to be reversed. They also discuss residential patterns and school choice programs, but do not think that these have played a significant role in resegregation. They feel that the problem of resegregation is now on educators to solve. Orfied et al. cite The Civil Rights Project again, “Resegregation would not matter so much if racial segregation were not linked to unequal education. Nine-tenths of intensely segregated schools for African Americans and Latinos have high concentrations of poverty.”
Wraga discusses the three ideals of American education that were affirmed through the Brown decision: Unifying function of public education, educating enlightened citizens, and publicly supported education.” He says, “No longer can these ideals be taken for granted.” One of Wraga’s main points is that school choice programs are causing resegregaton. I thought this was very interesting: “Proposals for school choice, charter schools, and magnet schools often promote segregation in a variety of ways, targeting students on the basis of academic or vocational ability, aptitude, or aspiration; gender; and even race.”
I have two questions that I think would make for great discussion:
- Do you think school choice programs cause resegregation?
- How do educators fix the problem of unequal education caused by segregation?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Inclusion....Good for all students or none???????????
This text offers a basic historical background on inclusion, it gives the legislation that backs why inclusion mandated by IDEA in 1990. Special Education, as we know it today, began in during the implementation of the law in 1975 (previously known as Education for all Handicapped Children Act) when “children with defined handicaps have the right to free public education (Noll, 231).” In the 1990 version of the law, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), has spawned an “ “inclusive schools movement, and supports recommend no students be assigned to special classrooms or segregated wings of public schools. (Noll, 232)” The two authors with arguments stated in the text: For inclusion Richard A. Villa and Jacqueline S. Thousand Making Inclusive Education Work and Against inclusive settings, Karen Agne, The dismantling of the Great American Public School.
Villa and Thousand begin their article by given a brief synopsis of the federal legislation that brought about these “inclusive settings” At the bottom of the first page he gives a brief fact “By 1999, 47.4% of students with disabilities spent 80% or more of their day in general education classrooms, compared with 25% of students with disabilities in 1985 (US department of Education, Villa and Thousand, 233). Later in the article, the authors state that “despite the movement toward inclusive education, tremendous disparities still exist…the US Department of Education found that the percentage of students with disabilities ages 6-21 who were taught for 80% or more of the school day in general education ranged from a low of 18% in Hawaii to a high of 82% in Vermont (Villa and Thousand). In the text, they give research findings that will make documented effective inclusive school practices. These include: Connection with Best Practices, Visionary Leadership, Redefined Roles, Collaboration, and Adult Support. The authors wrap up the text with “systematic support, collaboration, effective classroom practices, and a universal design approach can make inclusive education work so that students with disabilities have the same access to the general education curriculum…”
Agne begin her stand with a conversation that many individuals may have when speaking about an inclusive setting. She goes on in to discuss a common scenario in an inclusive setting classroom where a child with behavioral difficulties is interrupting a typical child’s classroom learning time, or even when a child with a medical condition needs to have one on one attention due to his medical conditions and it interrupts the school day. In her article she gives an analogy which is beneficial for a teacher to think about “ if a horticulturist were to provide the same amount and type of food, water, soil, and light to everyone of the hundreds of plants in her care, easily half would not survive. Moreover, it would surely require many years for the same professional to acquire enough varied knowledge and skill to ensure that each plant will survive, much less thrive. Now, if every ten months each gardeners stock was replaced with a collection of completely new and different plants, only then would his task begin to compare even slightly with that of today’s professional teacher (Agne, 242).” Advocates of inclusion call for these changes in education, to make inclusion effective, knowing through research that inclusion is not an effective strategy, (listed on page, 242).
We all come from very different walks of life, with many, many different experiences---some good and some bad, but it has molded us into the teachers we are today(or are going to be). How do you feel about inclusion (do you feel that it is beneficial, or is it hindering all parties involved) ? Do you like the co-teaching idea as suggested by advocates for inclusion? Do you have these experiences in your classroom, school?
Villa and Thousand begin their article by given a brief synopsis of the federal legislation that brought about these “inclusive settings” At the bottom of the first page he gives a brief fact “By 1999, 47.4% of students with disabilities spent 80% or more of their day in general education classrooms, compared with 25% of students with disabilities in 1985 (US department of Education, Villa and Thousand, 233). Later in the article, the authors state that “despite the movement toward inclusive education, tremendous disparities still exist…the US Department of Education found that the percentage of students with disabilities ages 6-21 who were taught for 80% or more of the school day in general education ranged from a low of 18% in Hawaii to a high of 82% in Vermont (Villa and Thousand). In the text, they give research findings that will make documented effective inclusive school practices. These include: Connection with Best Practices, Visionary Leadership, Redefined Roles, Collaboration, and Adult Support. The authors wrap up the text with “systematic support, collaboration, effective classroom practices, and a universal design approach can make inclusive education work so that students with disabilities have the same access to the general education curriculum…”
Agne begin her stand with a conversation that many individuals may have when speaking about an inclusive setting. She goes on in to discuss a common scenario in an inclusive setting classroom where a child with behavioral difficulties is interrupting a typical child’s classroom learning time, or even when a child with a medical condition needs to have one on one attention due to his medical conditions and it interrupts the school day. In her article she gives an analogy which is beneficial for a teacher to think about “ if a horticulturist were to provide the same amount and type of food, water, soil, and light to everyone of the hundreds of plants in her care, easily half would not survive. Moreover, it would surely require many years for the same professional to acquire enough varied knowledge and skill to ensure that each plant will survive, much less thrive. Now, if every ten months each gardeners stock was replaced with a collection of completely new and different plants, only then would his task begin to compare even slightly with that of today’s professional teacher (Agne, 242).” Advocates of inclusion call for these changes in education, to make inclusion effective, knowing through research that inclusion is not an effective strategy, (listed on page, 242).
We all come from very different walks of life, with many, many different experiences---some good and some bad, but it has molded us into the teachers we are today(or are going to be). How do you feel about inclusion (do you feel that it is beneficial, or is it hindering all parties involved) ? Do you like the co-teaching idea as suggested by advocates for inclusion? Do you have these experiences in your classroom, school?
Issue 17- Is There a Crisis in the Education of Boys?
Gender differences in education seems to have become a hot topic to debate recently with people thinking that in the past few years too much attention has been placed on the education of girls. Today though, the attention is being focused on boys and the idea that they have been falling behind academically and that this trend needs to stop. Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens article "With Boys and Girls in Mind" states that "our schools fail to recognize and fulfill gender-specific needs" (Noll 288). What exactly does this mean though? They believe that boys are falling behind in the schools because teachers are not accounting for the differences in brain structure between boys and girls. Due to the different areas of the brain, it causes girls to be better at subjects such as reading and writing and boys better at things involving spatial-mechanical functioning, such as math. The authors also believe in a nature-based approach which "calls attention to the importance of basing human attachment and education strategies on research-driven biological understanding of human nature" (292) I understand this to mean setting up teaching that takes into account the brain differences of boys and girls, which includes setting up classrooms in various settings to accommodate for differences and to also train teachers in how to incorporate different learning styles based on the differences in the brain make-up of boys and girls.
While I do agree with Gurian and Stevens that students have different learning styles that need to be accommodated for, I don't think it's solely because of gender differences in the brain. I just think that all students learn differently, which is why I agree more with Sara Mead. She believes that boys aren't doing bad in school, it's just that girls are doing better and the reason for the "boy crisis" is because it's newsworthy that people believe boys are falling behind academically, simply because girls are starting to catch up. She cites a lot of statistics from the "Nation's Report Card" which shows that in certian subjects, boys scores have increased up to 8th grade, but have decreased in the 12th grade. Compared to girls though, she states, "overall, there has been no radical or recent decline in boys performance relative to girls" (300) and that high schools need to not only fix how they teach boys but "they need to be fixed to meet the needs of all students, male and female." (300) While there is a decline in boys performance, she believes it is more due to a concern with racial and economic gaps, not gender.
After reading these articles I thought a good question to pose would be, Is there a certain way that boys should be taught as opposed to girls and do you think there is a gender gap when it comes to teaching kids? (Also, should differences in learning be solely based on brain differences?-you don't necessarily have to answer this one, I just thought it would be a good question to think about when answering the other one.)
While I do agree with Gurian and Stevens that students have different learning styles that need to be accommodated for, I don't think it's solely because of gender differences in the brain. I just think that all students learn differently, which is why I agree more with Sara Mead. She believes that boys aren't doing bad in school, it's just that girls are doing better and the reason for the "boy crisis" is because it's newsworthy that people believe boys are falling behind academically, simply because girls are starting to catch up. She cites a lot of statistics from the "Nation's Report Card" which shows that in certian subjects, boys scores have increased up to 8th grade, but have decreased in the 12th grade. Compared to girls though, she states, "overall, there has been no radical or recent decline in boys performance relative to girls" (300) and that high schools need to not only fix how they teach boys but "they need to be fixed to meet the needs of all students, male and female." (300) While there is a decline in boys performance, she believes it is more due to a concern with racial and economic gaps, not gender.
After reading these articles I thought a good question to pose would be, Is there a certain way that boys should be taught as opposed to girls and do you think there is a gender gap when it comes to teaching kids? (Also, should differences in learning be solely based on brain differences?-you don't necessarily have to answer this one, I just thought it would be a good question to think about when answering the other one.)
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Issue 19 - Do Computers Negatively Affect Student Growth?
After reading Lowell Monke’s view on how technology is not increasing our student’s ability to learn or perform higher on standardized tests, I can, in a skewed way, see where he is coming from. I myself believe that technology is a wonderful thing in education, but I will get to that later. Monke believes that “there is a huge qualitative difference between learning about something… and learning from something” (Noll, 327). I can see his point that children aren’t getting the first-hand experiences that they should be getting, not having as many face-to-face conversations with people, etc. but the information and wealth of knowledge that they do gain outweighs it tenfold. (in my opinion) Theodore Roszak states that “an excess of information may actually crowd out ideas, leaving the mind (young minds especially) distracted by sterile, disconnected facts, lost among the shapeless heaps of data.” Some examples Monke gave of technology circumventing the developmental process are students that use spell check instead of learning to spell, and students that use calculators to add instead of learning to add. (Noll, pg. 328) Monke also stated more than once that firsthand experiences are what children need to develop, not just abstract symbols on a two-dimensional screen. I guess my problem with that is all of the different types of technology out there. Take video conferencing for example. This year my class was able to give a presentation and talk with another third grade class that was in New York City. How would that be possible without the use of technology? The students might be lacking face-to-face conversations, but to interact with a classroom across the country (or world) is an experience in itself.
Frederick M. Hess seems to share some of Monkes same observations about technology in the schools. He states that competitive enterprises are on a constant search to improve productivity, and public schools have no reason to regard technology as a tool… to rethink the ways in which they deliver education. He does, however, believe that “the tools of technology, used appropriately, can support innovation and reinvention in education” (Noll, pg. 324). Take for example, the Florida Virtual School that has over 75 course offerings and over 6,500 students enrolled in their program. This program can provide academic instruction more effectively and cheaply, freeing up resources for other needs. Teachers can more easily track students’ progress and performance at a glance with the use of technology. They are also able to create graphs and data at the push of a button, and even use essay grading software to eliminate the repetitious task of reading through hundreds of essays. I agree with Hess when he says “technology is a tool, not a miracle cure” (Noll, pg. 338). I think that all of these advances in technology have saved countless hours of paperwork and stress on everyone involved in the education system. Who do you side with? And what do you think some of the pro’s and con’s are of technology in education? Given the advancement of technology, do you believe the students are benefiting from using this on an everyday basis in the schools?
Issuse 5 - Should Global Competition Steer School Reform?
Issue 5 takes a different approach as how education should be reformed. This approach looks at factors such as economic and global competition. These factors have become more prevalent since the 1950’s and continues to influence discussions and thoughts of those setting policy regarding education. At the bottom of page 64 and top of page 65 Noll list several key issues and historical events that have contributed to the beliefs that our current education system is failing to help our nation in the global market. This is also confirmed by both business leaders and economist who agree that our current system of education isn’t keeping pace with globalization thereby producing an un-qualified workforce.
Marc Tucker has a purposed plan to help make us more globally ready for the future. His plan is to reform our current system of education. He gives a clear 7 step system that will take us through this transition. Although he believes this will be a difficult under taking he feels it is a necessary process to keep us as a nation able to compete (the America mind set…as we spoke of in class) on a global scale.
On the other side of the issues is Herb Childress. Herb feels that there cannot be a specific standardized method to teach everyone; accordingly, the method in which to teach should be based more on the individual and their needs, wants and desires. He does not give us a plan to get there but shows us the eight results of what a high school graduate should look like from his perspective.
Now let’s move on to the part we have all been waiting for the question regarding this issue! Tucker's plan is very detailed in how we would go about implementing it but Childress leaves us with no plan. Therefore, I ask you what steps would we have to take to accomplish the results that Childress is looking for????
Marc Tucker has a purposed plan to help make us more globally ready for the future. His plan is to reform our current system of education. He gives a clear 7 step system that will take us through this transition. Although he believes this will be a difficult under taking he feels it is a necessary process to keep us as a nation able to compete (the America mind set…as we spoke of in class) on a global scale.
On the other side of the issues is Herb Childress. Herb feels that there cannot be a specific standardized method to teach everyone; accordingly, the method in which to teach should be based more on the individual and their needs, wants and desires. He does not give us a plan to get there but shows us the eight results of what a high school graduate should look like from his perspective.
Now let’s move on to the part we have all been waiting for the question regarding this issue! Tucker's plan is very detailed in how we would go about implementing it but Childress leaves us with no plan. Therefore, I ask you what steps would we have to take to accomplish the results that Childress is looking for????
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate, Can every child receive an equitable education?
I must start by saying I was a person who thought NCLB was a good remedy to our problems with our educational system. After reading Andrew Rotherham's stance of the issue of Initiatives rescuing failing schools I was even more optimistic about (NCLB). Rotherham, I think, makes a good connection between NCLB and the earlier efforts of 1994, which required states to develop academic standards, test linked to standards and accountability (Noll, p117). He focuses on the main problem of the re-authorization plan was the accountability piece of the legislation. The language he states was "too vague and porous" (Noll, p.117). The states were not compliant and the government did not follow up on what the states weren't doing. In 2002 NCLB came into existence. Rotherham believes that NCLB has addressed the accountability issue by clarifying the criteria for improvement, specific indicators of success and common goals followed by consequences if goals are not reached (Noll, p.118). Rotherham though states in the past would just simply ignore or delay parts of the Federal Education Laws they didn't like (Noll, p.122).
Paul D. Houston has shown me a new perspective on the issue. Houston is against NCLB mandate and states that it is structurally weak (Noll, p.123) and has fundamental flaws (which he has convinced me exist). Houston lays out his seven deadly sins of NCLB (Noll, p. 124-129). In his seven sins Houston discusses: 1. Schools are not broken. 2. Testing of children 3. Ignoring realities of poverty 4. Use of fear and coercion. 5. Lacking clarity 6. Not consulting the experts 7. Undermining international competitiveness. What I like most about Houston's belief is not only does he do a good job at pointing out the short comings of NCLB, he offers a solution in his "New Agenda for education"(Noll, p. 126-127). In conclusion, I was in favor of No Child Left Behind and I thought if the government would give schools more money, then it would work. Houston has swayed me in the other direction. As long as the issues that have a direct effect on the poor i.e. lack of health care, issues that middle class and the wealthy don't have to deal with, Our educational system will never be able to provide an equitable education to all children (I believe). What do you think? And why?
I must start by saying I was a person who thought NCLB was a good remedy to our problems with our educational system. After reading Andrew Rotherham's stance of the issue of Initiatives rescuing failing schools I was even more optimistic about (NCLB). Rotherham, I think, makes a good connection between NCLB and the earlier efforts of 1994, which required states to develop academic standards, test linked to standards and accountability (Noll, p117). He focuses on the main problem of the re-authorization plan was the accountability piece of the legislation. The language he states was "too vague and porous" (Noll, p.117). The states were not compliant and the government did not follow up on what the states weren't doing. In 2002 NCLB came into existence. Rotherham believes that NCLB has addressed the accountability issue by clarifying the criteria for improvement, specific indicators of success and common goals followed by consequences if goals are not reached (Noll, p.118). Rotherham though states in the past would just simply ignore or delay parts of the Federal Education Laws they didn't like (Noll, p.122).
Paul D. Houston has shown me a new perspective on the issue. Houston is against NCLB mandate and states that it is structurally weak (Noll, p.123) and has fundamental flaws (which he has convinced me exist). Houston lays out his seven deadly sins of NCLB (Noll, p. 124-129). In his seven sins Houston discusses: 1. Schools are not broken. 2. Testing of children 3. Ignoring realities of poverty 4. Use of fear and coercion. 5. Lacking clarity 6. Not consulting the experts 7. Undermining international competitiveness. What I like most about Houston's belief is not only does he do a good job at pointing out the short comings of NCLB, he offers a solution in his "New Agenda for education"(Noll, p. 126-127). In conclusion, I was in favor of No Child Left Behind and I thought if the government would give schools more money, then it would work. Houston has swayed me in the other direction. As long as the issues that have a direct effect on the poor i.e. lack of health care, issues that middle class and the wealthy don't have to deal with, Our educational system will never be able to provide an equitable education to all children (I believe). What do you think? And why?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
What Should Schools Teach?
Well, after reading these essays I have to say my first reaction is that I wish I could be a fly on the wall during a discussion between these 4 guys....I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think Dewey embraces Progressivism! The main thing I like about him is that in promoting the "new," child-centered approach, he says that this doesn't mean we just get rid of everything in the old approach and adopt "a philosophy which proceeds on the basis of rejection, of sheer opposition" (Noll, p. 6). In other words: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!!
Hutchins believes that "the purpose of education is to improve men" (p. 11) (which I am sure Dewey would agree with--and that they would both include women as well); however, he appears to be a Perennialist--advocating for schools to "supply" a liberal education for all. I like that "for all" part--he specifically says "all men are capable of learning" (p. 14) (of course, so do those who promote standardized testing, but that's another debate...) and that education is not something that gets done to you in your youth and then you're done with it--it's a lifelong process. (Again, I think I hear Dewey agreeing.) I think his main thing is that he opposes Dewey's pragmatism--he's more into the universal, eternal ideas.
I think Adler, too, is a Perennialist. (Of course, knowing that he founded the Great Books program sort of gives it away.) The main attraction I have to his Paideia proposal is that, again, he feels every person, whether they are going to be a college professor, a professional athlete, or a car mechanic, deserves to be exposed to--and wrestle with and internalize--the great ideas of humanity. I think his progression makes sense, although (for me) it's a bit rigid, and I love his idea of teachers as coaches.
Now, Holt...whoa. I agree with much of his criticism of schools--we've all seen and/or experienced much of what he describes. But talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!! I guess if I had to "label" him, I'd say maybe he starts out as a Progressive but ends up in the Postmodern camp...? He does, after all, compare schools to Brave New World and advocates that we stand in opposition to them (p. 29).
So, I guess the question I'd like to throw out for discussion is: Based on their perceived philosophies of education, how would these guys rank the goals of education (from the survey we looked at in class)? (Feel free to just choose one of them to begin with.)
Hutchins believes that "the purpose of education is to improve men" (p. 11) (which I am sure Dewey would agree with--and that they would both include women as well); however, he appears to be a Perennialist--advocating for schools to "supply" a liberal education for all. I like that "for all" part--he specifically says "all men are capable of learning" (p. 14) (of course, so do those who promote standardized testing, but that's another debate...) and that education is not something that gets done to you in your youth and then you're done with it--it's a lifelong process. (Again, I think I hear Dewey agreeing.) I think his main thing is that he opposes Dewey's pragmatism--he's more into the universal, eternal ideas.
I think Adler, too, is a Perennialist. (Of course, knowing that he founded the Great Books program sort of gives it away.) The main attraction I have to his Paideia proposal is that, again, he feels every person, whether they are going to be a college professor, a professional athlete, or a car mechanic, deserves to be exposed to--and wrestle with and internalize--the great ideas of humanity. I think his progression makes sense, although (for me) it's a bit rigid, and I love his idea of teachers as coaches.
Now, Holt...whoa. I agree with much of his criticism of schools--we've all seen and/or experienced much of what he describes. But talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!! I guess if I had to "label" him, I'd say maybe he starts out as a Progressive but ends up in the Postmodern camp...? He does, after all, compare schools to Brave New World and advocates that we stand in opposition to them (p. 29).
So, I guess the question I'd like to throw out for discussion is: Based on their perceived philosophies of education, how would these guys rank the goals of education (from the survey we looked at in class)? (Feel free to just choose one of them to begin with.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
