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.)

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????

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?

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.)