Last set of readings for the semester! These readings cover a couple of different areas.
Myth 13
Teach for America teachers are well trained, highly qualified and get amazing results.
The idea of Teach for America is not new to me, I know quite a few people from my undergraduate education who are taking part in Teach for America. I know these people are very intelligent and extremely hard working, but I have to agree with the myth and wonder how qualified they are. These students go through a bit over a month of training, and essentially are unleashed on a classroom of students. They are not going to be great teachers getting good results for the simple fact that this is their first time teaching. They have no idea what they are actually doing. Being good at something takes time and learning for a lot of mistakes. They need resources, support and cooperative students. TFA's founding idea that new, intelligent young teachers are better than older teachers is incorrect in my opinion. The new teachers are hard working and have the best of intentions, but they just don't have the experience yet. I have no doubt that the people I know in TFA can be great teachers, in a couple of years.
Myth 16
Judging teacher education programs by means of the scores that their teachers' students get on state tests is a good way to judge the quality of the teacher education program.
The above statement does not make much sense to me. I think we have already established that test scores are not a good way to judge the ability of anyone really, and they are definitely not a good judge of either the teachers that taught the students or the institution that taught the teacher. Test scores are not valid or reliable measures of teacher effectiveness or student knowledge. Plus, judging institutions on the first year teachers they produce is not really fair, based on the discussion of the myth above. The teachers are beginners, they will not be great teachers right out of the gate. Also, many new teachers work with classrooms filled with students from low SES classes, and statistically, those students do worse national tests, which would made the institution that trained the teacher look bad, when really it is just the student population.
Myth 31
Bullying is inevitable, it's just kids. It's a rite of passage. The natural effort to eliminate bullying is effectively addressing the problem in our schools.
Bullying is a sad reality for way too many students in schools today. And now not only does it occur at school, it can also occur online in this new technological age. While I feel like bullying is on the rise, this article made a great point that schools need to adopt a comprehensive anti-bullying policy, and then train staff to reinforce it. Students need to know that the school is serious about bullying and that teachers will give out consequences. The anit-bullying campaign is a great idea, but it needs to be backed up with action.
Myth 47
College admissions are based on student's achievement in grades K-12 and their SAT or ACT scores.
While I would love to believe this myth, and did believe it until I started attending Notre Dame, where I was accepted for undergrad, I have found that it is not true in the least. From personal experience at Notre Dame, I can tell you that they admit students by category. Sadly, there were always the 'athletes.' Don't get me wrong, there were some great 'student athletes,' but there was an overwhelming majority of athletes that academically, had no place at Notre Dame. They just could not handle it. But they remained at school because we needed an amazing D1 athletic team in pretty much every sport. Notre Dame is also great at accepting legacy students. Notre Dame is a family school, and will give preference to you if anyone in your family has attended before. They even have a question about it on the application. Legacy and athlete admissions are discouraging to see because they take spots away from other students who could be more academically qualified and they discriminate against poor, non-legacy students (because legacy students tend to be from a rich family).
Monday, November 17, 2014
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Readings for Nov 6
The readings for this week were on a topic of your choosing, and I chose to read about technology in the classroom. This is a hot topic right now, as new technology is invading our everyday lives, and now our classrooms.
The first article I looked at was 'Technology is Changing How Students Learn, Teachers Say.' I really liked this article because, while it was not a scientific study that proved anything, it interviewed many teachers about their students, technology and how technology is changing their students and their methods of teaching. Teachers are the people who are in contact with students for the longest periods of time, so it makes sense to interview them. Teachers reported that they felt the attention span of their students were decreasing, and they needed to be constantly entertained. Teachers think of themselves as entertainers, just to get their students to focus long enough for them to get a point across. Technology is training kids to need constant stimulation while they shift their attention quickly. This is not really conductive to the traditional style of teaching, so technology is being brought into the classroom to try to engage and teach students of the younger generation. But then are teachers just encouraging the negative consequences of technology? Are they reinforcing the short attention spans, or engaging and teaching their students in a better way? That is hard to tell. Personally, I believe that technology shortens attention spans. I can see it in myself a lot. It is difficult for me to focus for long periods of time without looking at my phone or computer. It's quite sad actually. But, on the other hand, technology is such a big part of our society, I think we need to make sure students can use it effectively, so it must be utilized in the classroom. I really think that technology should be used less outside of the classroom, if we are concerned about the negative effects of technology.
The second reading I looked at was titled "11 Real Ways Technology Is Affecting Education Right Now.' This article and accompanying study looked at college students and the increasing rate of use of technology in the classroom. If you look around at a college classroom, almost everyone has a computer. We use them to take notes, write papers, do research and even take classes. Students are also using them to get online textbooks for their classes and communicate with their professors and classmates, much like this class. This survey study also found that 67% of students cannot go 1 hour without looking at technology, while 40% can't last more than 10 minutes. Yikes! I am really guilty of this too, unless I am studying hard for a test. This is scary! Talk about short attention spans. But this use of technology saves students hours of work a day, and helps them perform research more effectively. There are some perks to using technology, I can attest to that, but what are the downfalls? I don't think we know the extent yet. There haven't been any long term studies of the effects technology on social skills or learning ability. I guess we will see.
The first article I looked at was 'Technology is Changing How Students Learn, Teachers Say.' I really liked this article because, while it was not a scientific study that proved anything, it interviewed many teachers about their students, technology and how technology is changing their students and their methods of teaching. Teachers are the people who are in contact with students for the longest periods of time, so it makes sense to interview them. Teachers reported that they felt the attention span of their students were decreasing, and they needed to be constantly entertained. Teachers think of themselves as entertainers, just to get their students to focus long enough for them to get a point across. Technology is training kids to need constant stimulation while they shift their attention quickly. This is not really conductive to the traditional style of teaching, so technology is being brought into the classroom to try to engage and teach students of the younger generation. But then are teachers just encouraging the negative consequences of technology? Are they reinforcing the short attention spans, or engaging and teaching their students in a better way? That is hard to tell. Personally, I believe that technology shortens attention spans. I can see it in myself a lot. It is difficult for me to focus for long periods of time without looking at my phone or computer. It's quite sad actually. But, on the other hand, technology is such a big part of our society, I think we need to make sure students can use it effectively, so it must be utilized in the classroom. I really think that technology should be used less outside of the classroom, if we are concerned about the negative effects of technology.
The second reading I looked at was titled "11 Real Ways Technology Is Affecting Education Right Now.' This article and accompanying study looked at college students and the increasing rate of use of technology in the classroom. If you look around at a college classroom, almost everyone has a computer. We use them to take notes, write papers, do research and even take classes. Students are also using them to get online textbooks for their classes and communicate with their professors and classmates, much like this class. This survey study also found that 67% of students cannot go 1 hour without looking at technology, while 40% can't last more than 10 minutes. Yikes! I am really guilty of this too, unless I am studying hard for a test. This is scary! Talk about short attention spans. But this use of technology saves students hours of work a day, and helps them perform research more effectively. There are some perks to using technology, I can attest to that, but what are the downfalls? I don't think we know the extent yet. There haven't been any long term studies of the effects technology on social skills or learning ability. I guess we will see.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Readings for Oct 30th
The readings for this week centered around the question of 'how does poverty impact schooling?' Money and use of money in a school system was a big part of this topic.
Myth 34
Forced Integration has failed.
This myth discussed the idea of segregation. We has all learned that desegregation happened a while ago, in the 60s, but we have slipped back into segregated schools. Due to school choice options, schools are becoming more and more segregated. This is harmful to both sides; you lose social and academic benefits of segregation and you undermine the opportunities and social experiences if you do not have diverse schools. This leads to narrow thinking and perspectives, which will filter out into our society. I found it interesting and sad that there is a connection between race and poverty and that desegregation is actually unofficial in the 'North.' The 'South' actually has better desegregated schools, so both sides benefits in the schools.
Myth 35
Money doesn't matter. We're spending more money than ever, but test scores are stagnant.
This article pointed out that scores are actually increasing, not stagnant, if you look at the average student. They pointed out the cost did increase, quite a bit, but if you think about it, everything is more expensive than it was. It costs more money to education students now because not only do you need books, but you also need computers and tablets and smart boards. Technology is integrated into schools, and technology is expensive. Also, special education is now required in schools, and that is expensive. So yes, we are spending more money, but the game has changed. The things we need to pay for just cost more. In general however, we all know that resources predict outcomes in schools, and like I said, resources cost money. So money does matter. The more money you have as a school, the more resources you can get and the better the outcome you can have. Plus, you get better results with more experienced teachers, and they have higher salaries. To say money doesn't matter is ridiculous, and if it were true, parents wouldn't be so pro-school choices.
Myth 36
The money available to school districts is spread equally across their schools.
I would think this is the case, actually would hope so, but apparently it is not. The money schools get come from the federal government, state government and the local community. The federal is pretty standard, but the state funds can depend on the density of the population and the funds from the local community depends on how supportive they are of education. If the local community is older and does not care about paying for the education of kids they don't know, the school will get less money than another school whose community supports it. This translates into poorer communities having poorer schools with less resources, but more students that need them. The whole idea that each school does not get equal funds is unfortunate because that means they do not have equal resources and therefore the students do not have equal opportunities.
Myth 37
In America, public money is not used to support religious schools.
Again, I really hoped that this was actually true, but apparently not. We have also heard that church and state should be separated. Doesn't that translate into not paying for religious schools? I do not like the idea of giving money to these private schools because it takes away money and resources from public schools. This topic was touched on when we were discussing school choice, and my opinion is still the same. If you want to send your child to a private, religious school, that is your choice as a parent, but then you should pay for it.
Myth 46
AP courses are providing minority students an opportunity to get a head start on a college education.
AP courses are a great opportunity for many students to get a jump on college credit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is an equal opportunity for everyone. Minority populations, and the schools they attend, might not offer as many AP classes and they might not be as rigorous as other schools, which means they don't really get the benefit of AP courses. This is again a lack of equal opportunity, which is not fair. The idea of AP classes in minority schools is amazing, but they need to be up to par with everyone else so they get the benefits. Dual enrollment, which offers college credit at community colleges, might make more sense for these students. Interestingly, this article pointed out that while many more people take AP courses now than when they were first created, the same type of people still take the test-white, upper middle class.
Myth 48
Education will lift the poor out of poverty and materially enrich our nation.
Wouldn't this be awesome? But poverty is a multifaceted issue, it is pervasive and affects their whole lives. Education alone cannot fix such a widespread issue. In order to do that, we need fundamental social and economic reforms, we need to change the thinking of a community. The fact that people think education can fix poverty leads to more people getting more education, which is great, but then not getting the financial benefit they were expecting. The fact is that education and income are correlated, but not the end game. In fact, there is evidence that educational attainment significantly exceeds the educational requirements of the available jobs. So we have a whole bunch of really education people, but jobs in the service industry, like McDonald's. Plus, when focus so much on the part of education that will make us money in the future, we lose the other sides of education, like social, emotional and intellectual goals.
Myth 34
Forced Integration has failed.
This myth discussed the idea of segregation. We has all learned that desegregation happened a while ago, in the 60s, but we have slipped back into segregated schools. Due to school choice options, schools are becoming more and more segregated. This is harmful to both sides; you lose social and academic benefits of segregation and you undermine the opportunities and social experiences if you do not have diverse schools. This leads to narrow thinking and perspectives, which will filter out into our society. I found it interesting and sad that there is a connection between race and poverty and that desegregation is actually unofficial in the 'North.' The 'South' actually has better desegregated schools, so both sides benefits in the schools.
Myth 35
Money doesn't matter. We're spending more money than ever, but test scores are stagnant.
This article pointed out that scores are actually increasing, not stagnant, if you look at the average student. They pointed out the cost did increase, quite a bit, but if you think about it, everything is more expensive than it was. It costs more money to education students now because not only do you need books, but you also need computers and tablets and smart boards. Technology is integrated into schools, and technology is expensive. Also, special education is now required in schools, and that is expensive. So yes, we are spending more money, but the game has changed. The things we need to pay for just cost more. In general however, we all know that resources predict outcomes in schools, and like I said, resources cost money. So money does matter. The more money you have as a school, the more resources you can get and the better the outcome you can have. Plus, you get better results with more experienced teachers, and they have higher salaries. To say money doesn't matter is ridiculous, and if it were true, parents wouldn't be so pro-school choices.
Myth 36
The money available to school districts is spread equally across their schools.
I would think this is the case, actually would hope so, but apparently it is not. The money schools get come from the federal government, state government and the local community. The federal is pretty standard, but the state funds can depend on the density of the population and the funds from the local community depends on how supportive they are of education. If the local community is older and does not care about paying for the education of kids they don't know, the school will get less money than another school whose community supports it. This translates into poorer communities having poorer schools with less resources, but more students that need them. The whole idea that each school does not get equal funds is unfortunate because that means they do not have equal resources and therefore the students do not have equal opportunities.
Myth 37
In America, public money is not used to support religious schools.
Again, I really hoped that this was actually true, but apparently not. We have also heard that church and state should be separated. Doesn't that translate into not paying for religious schools? I do not like the idea of giving money to these private schools because it takes away money and resources from public schools. This topic was touched on when we were discussing school choice, and my opinion is still the same. If you want to send your child to a private, religious school, that is your choice as a parent, but then you should pay for it.
Myth 46
AP courses are providing minority students an opportunity to get a head start on a college education.
AP courses are a great opportunity for many students to get a jump on college credit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is an equal opportunity for everyone. Minority populations, and the schools they attend, might not offer as many AP classes and they might not be as rigorous as other schools, which means they don't really get the benefit of AP courses. This is again a lack of equal opportunity, which is not fair. The idea of AP classes in minority schools is amazing, but they need to be up to par with everyone else so they get the benefits. Dual enrollment, which offers college credit at community colleges, might make more sense for these students. Interestingly, this article pointed out that while many more people take AP courses now than when they were first created, the same type of people still take the test-white, upper middle class.
Myth 48
Education will lift the poor out of poverty and materially enrich our nation.
Wouldn't this be awesome? But poverty is a multifaceted issue, it is pervasive and affects their whole lives. Education alone cannot fix such a widespread issue. In order to do that, we need fundamental social and economic reforms, we need to change the thinking of a community. The fact that people think education can fix poverty leads to more people getting more education, which is great, but then not getting the financial benefit they were expecting. The fact is that education and income are correlated, but not the end game. In fact, there is evidence that educational attainment significantly exceeds the educational requirements of the available jobs. So we have a whole bunch of really education people, but jobs in the service industry, like McDonald's. Plus, when focus so much on the part of education that will make us money in the future, we lose the other sides of education, like social, emotional and intellectual goals.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Readings for October 23
The reading this week focused on a variety of topics, many of which are implemented at the school district level and therefore effects all students within the district.
Myth 18
Retaining children in grade 'flunking' them helps struggling students catch up and promotes better classroom instruction for all.
This myth, on the surface, makes sense. You allow the child to go through the school work again, relearn the material and allow them to master if before moving on. This article, however, pointed out that this is not the case. The strategy is not effective and student's do not necessarily master the material, they just get better at it because it is the second time they are going over the same stuff. Retaining students essentially creates negative outcomes in terms of social and emotional well being for the child, and they also develop a negative attitude toward school, because by holding them back, you are telling them that they aren't 'good' at school. Parent's attitudes toward their children also change-they expect less from their child, which is not a good vibe to send the child. If schools really wanted to help struggling students, they would hire extra tutors, implement summer programs and ensure everyone had a good foundation by having great preschools available for everyone. Holding children back in school is really just a waste of money and negatively changes that child's attitude toward themselves and school.
Myth 27
If a program works well in one school or district, it should be imported and expected to work well elsewhere
This idea would make sense, if the world was perfect and all school districts were exactly the same. But that is not the case, and I have seen when new superintendents of school districts try to do this and it fails. We went through three different superintendents while I was in school, and all of them had a great 'new plan' to try. It was rare that the results were ever as expected. Trying to implement new programs in different districts will almost never get the same results because the teachers, students, relationships and community support is not the same from district to district. The context of each district is too complicated to ensure a one plan fits all type deal. The sad part is, when the programs fail, the teachers are often blamed for not implementing it correctly, which is not a fair assessment at all.
Myth 30
Character education will save America's youth and strengthen the nation's moral fiber.
This myth made the amusing observation that all older generations think that the younger generations are losing respect, work ethic and cultural competency. So of course they would want to implement programs to build student's characters and create good citizens. That is the point of public education correct? To create good citizens? But social and character development programs do not work for the simple reason that things like character cannot be taught (confusingly enough, they are learned however). Plus, students spend most of their time and build most of their character outside of school, in their neighborhood and at home. So while trying to create better citizens by building character of children in school sounds like a good plan, it doesn't work. And I really wonder if it is the job of the schools anyway? Or if the responsibility lies with community that child lives in as a whole?
Myth 33
Mayoral control of city schools has paid off in terms of student achievement.
This article makes the good point that it really depends on location of the school district and who is in charge for this myth to be 'true' or 'false.' In general however, mayoral control has not lead to any academic achievement gains from students and if anything, as increased the achievement gap. Mayoral control also reduces the democratic process present in many schools, and leaves one person with all the power, which historically, is not a good decision. By putting rich people in charge of school districts and allowing them to choose more rich people for the school board, you are creating a large disconnect between the board and the population served. When there is such a disconnect, it is easy to understand why there hasn't been much improvement. The board doesn't understand what the school and population needs or wants. Mayoral control also can lead to high teacher turnover and many school closures, both of which do not benefit the students.
Myth 18
Retaining children in grade 'flunking' them helps struggling students catch up and promotes better classroom instruction for all.
This myth, on the surface, makes sense. You allow the child to go through the school work again, relearn the material and allow them to master if before moving on. This article, however, pointed out that this is not the case. The strategy is not effective and student's do not necessarily master the material, they just get better at it because it is the second time they are going over the same stuff. Retaining students essentially creates negative outcomes in terms of social and emotional well being for the child, and they also develop a negative attitude toward school, because by holding them back, you are telling them that they aren't 'good' at school. Parent's attitudes toward their children also change-they expect less from their child, which is not a good vibe to send the child. If schools really wanted to help struggling students, they would hire extra tutors, implement summer programs and ensure everyone had a good foundation by having great preschools available for everyone. Holding children back in school is really just a waste of money and negatively changes that child's attitude toward themselves and school.
Myth 27
If a program works well in one school or district, it should be imported and expected to work well elsewhere
This idea would make sense, if the world was perfect and all school districts were exactly the same. But that is not the case, and I have seen when new superintendents of school districts try to do this and it fails. We went through three different superintendents while I was in school, and all of them had a great 'new plan' to try. It was rare that the results were ever as expected. Trying to implement new programs in different districts will almost never get the same results because the teachers, students, relationships and community support is not the same from district to district. The context of each district is too complicated to ensure a one plan fits all type deal. The sad part is, when the programs fail, the teachers are often blamed for not implementing it correctly, which is not a fair assessment at all.
Myth 30
Character education will save America's youth and strengthen the nation's moral fiber.
This myth made the amusing observation that all older generations think that the younger generations are losing respect, work ethic and cultural competency. So of course they would want to implement programs to build student's characters and create good citizens. That is the point of public education correct? To create good citizens? But social and character development programs do not work for the simple reason that things like character cannot be taught (confusingly enough, they are learned however). Plus, students spend most of their time and build most of their character outside of school, in their neighborhood and at home. So while trying to create better citizens by building character of children in school sounds like a good plan, it doesn't work. And I really wonder if it is the job of the schools anyway? Or if the responsibility lies with community that child lives in as a whole?
Myth 33
Mayoral control of city schools has paid off in terms of student achievement.
This article makes the good point that it really depends on location of the school district and who is in charge for this myth to be 'true' or 'false.' In general however, mayoral control has not lead to any academic achievement gains from students and if anything, as increased the achievement gap. Mayoral control also reduces the democratic process present in many schools, and leaves one person with all the power, which historically, is not a good decision. By putting rich people in charge of school districts and allowing them to choose more rich people for the school board, you are creating a large disconnect between the board and the population served. When there is such a disconnect, it is easy to understand why there hasn't been much improvement. The board doesn't understand what the school and population needs or wants. Mayoral control also can lead to high teacher turnover and many school closures, both of which do not benefit the students.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Readings for Oct 16th
The readings this week focused on different types of schools, including private schools, charter schools and homeschooling.
Myth 2
This myth focuses on the idea that people believe private schools are better than public schools.
I think whether this myth is true or not really depends on where you live. Where I am from, we pretty much lacked private schools, unless you wanted to attend one affiliated with a religion. If you live in a large city however, the private school might actually have more money, resources and better teachers than the public schools. Either way, there is little evidence that private schools actually educate their students any better than public schools, especially after you take into account SES, race/ethnicity and disabilities.
Myth 3
This myth states that Charter schools are better than traditional public schools
I was interested to learn from this reading that charter schools are the most prevalent form of school choice out there, and it is actually publicly funded! So really anyone could send their child to a charter school for free, but there isn't any evidence that they will get a better education then. 80% of charter schools are no better/do worse than public schools. It really depends on their resources and teachers, which is exactly the same situation in public schools. Charter schools are also prejudice against children with special needs and there are reports that they flunk out students to make themselves look better, which makes me not a fan of them.
Myth 4
This reading debunks the idea that charter schools are private schools.
What?? I had no idea. I really thought they were private schools, until reading this and the previous myth, which told me they are publicly funded. Who knew? They use taxpayer money to operate, but they are more autonomous and do not have to answer to a school board. They are also not held accountable to all state and federal standards and rules, which seems odd to me...who do they answer to then? Who regulates them? This freedom seems like it could be a good thing, but it could also be bad because they have no standard that they are held to. The children could be getting a sub-par education because of this.
Myth 5
Cyberschools are efficient, cost saving and highly effective means of delivering an education.
I can believe that cyberschools are cost effective-they don't have to buy books, they don't have to upkeep a building or hire a lot of support staff . Strangely enough, they are usually owned by companies. So really, it is just a big money-making venture. I don't think schools should be for profit institutions, so I don't like the idea of charter schools. Research also shows that they don't educate their students as well, so that is another big negative.
Myth 6
Home-schooled children are better educated than those who attend regular public schools.
Having experience with home-schooled friends, I don't really think this is true. I think they are usually really good at one particular thing or subject, but are about average in all other areas. Public education gives you a more rounded result I think. The article made a great point that home-schooling is only as good as the parents and their resources. Parents need to have the time, education and resources to make their home an enriched environment for learning. They also need to be able to supplement the home environment well.
Myth 2
This myth focuses on the idea that people believe private schools are better than public schools.
I think whether this myth is true or not really depends on where you live. Where I am from, we pretty much lacked private schools, unless you wanted to attend one affiliated with a religion. If you live in a large city however, the private school might actually have more money, resources and better teachers than the public schools. Either way, there is little evidence that private schools actually educate their students any better than public schools, especially after you take into account SES, race/ethnicity and disabilities.
Myth 3
This myth states that Charter schools are better than traditional public schools
I was interested to learn from this reading that charter schools are the most prevalent form of school choice out there, and it is actually publicly funded! So really anyone could send their child to a charter school for free, but there isn't any evidence that they will get a better education then. 80% of charter schools are no better/do worse than public schools. It really depends on their resources and teachers, which is exactly the same situation in public schools. Charter schools are also prejudice against children with special needs and there are reports that they flunk out students to make themselves look better, which makes me not a fan of them.
Myth 4
This reading debunks the idea that charter schools are private schools.
What?? I had no idea. I really thought they were private schools, until reading this and the previous myth, which told me they are publicly funded. Who knew? They use taxpayer money to operate, but they are more autonomous and do not have to answer to a school board. They are also not held accountable to all state and federal standards and rules, which seems odd to me...who do they answer to then? Who regulates them? This freedom seems like it could be a good thing, but it could also be bad because they have no standard that they are held to. The children could be getting a sub-par education because of this.
Myth 5
Cyberschools are efficient, cost saving and highly effective means of delivering an education.
I can believe that cyberschools are cost effective-they don't have to buy books, they don't have to upkeep a building or hire a lot of support staff . Strangely enough, they are usually owned by companies. So really, it is just a big money-making venture. I don't think schools should be for profit institutions, so I don't like the idea of charter schools. Research also shows that they don't educate their students as well, so that is another big negative.
Myth 6
Home-schooled children are better educated than those who attend regular public schools.
Having experience with home-schooled friends, I don't really think this is true. I think they are usually really good at one particular thing or subject, but are about average in all other areas. Public education gives you a more rounded result I think. The article made a great point that home-schooling is only as good as the parents and their resources. Parents need to have the time, education and resources to make their home an enriched environment for learning. They also need to be able to supplement the home environment well.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
The Question of Bilingual Education
This week, we were asked to interview three different people about their opinions of bilingual education and whether it should be something that is pushed for in schools. I will not be using the names of the individuals that I interviewed, but will attempt to explain their views as honestly as possible.
Person 1
This person had the unique experience of growing up and living in Canada and being in a French immersion program since the age of four. She attended a school where they spoke only French, and taught all subjects in French, but she spoke English exclusively at home. She supports the idea of bilingual education, based on her past experience. She sited, first of all, that in Canada, two of their Providences actually have English and French as official languages, so it makes sense to learn both the languages. She also said that people knowing both of the languages would have more job opportunities, especially in the government. Knowing both languages also allowed you to appreciate the French culture, and it's role in Canadian history and today. Furthermore, she feels that by learning two languages, she feels more worldly and intelligent, and learned valuable problem-solving skills when trying to learn French, that she could apply to other topics. She said that learning one language also opened the door to learning other languages, like Spanish, which came easier to her. She said that they did not have formal French lessons until 7th grade, but instead picked up the language as they were learning other topics, like Math and Science. This allowed them to learn the core subjects, while taking the baby steps to learning a new language. She also emphasized that learning another language allows her to think in a different, unique way, because she had to think in a different way in order to be able to learn French and her class subjects at the same time.
Person 2
This person was not a fan of bilingual education, beyond the point of making sure that Spanish speaking students learn how to speak English. She believed that if they are a new student that moved here, they are expected to learn to speak English because this is America, and we speak English here. So bilingual education should only be used to teach Spanish students how to speak English. She did not like the idea of school systems having to spend extra money to help the students learn English however. She found it annoying that we had to do extra work to help them. She is a fan of the immersion programs that teach all the subjects, but in English; so not just intensive English instruction. She believes being able to speak English should be mandatory, because if you want to get a job and get ahead in our country, you have to speak English. She also does not think that we should have to change our culture to fit theirs; they can have their culture at home. She is not a fan of instructions or products that have two languages on them either. But, she expects the same of us if we move to a different culture. She mentioned that if one moved to Germany, they should expect us to learn German if we want to live there.
Person 3
This person was also a fan of bilingual education. Learning another language helps you understand others and their culture, which is important in a country as diverse as America. Learning another language is also important in today's global economy. Jobs are more often requiring travel to different countries and communicating with different people, so it is important to know different languages. She also mentioned that learning a different language opens up a different way of thinking for people. That way of thinking and problem solving makes kids smarter as they learn new words and new rules that you can apply to other areas.
Out of the people I interviewed, it seems like those in favor of bilingual education really liked the cultural aspect of it and the idea that it will help you with your career in the future. Bilingual education also encourages a unique, problem-solving way of thinking that can be applied to other subject areas. Those not in favor of bilingual education, understand the need for it, but only as a tool to help non-English speaking students learn English. English should be the only language used to teach topics in schools and we should not have to change our culture to accommodate theirs.
Person 1
This person had the unique experience of growing up and living in Canada and being in a French immersion program since the age of four. She attended a school where they spoke only French, and taught all subjects in French, but she spoke English exclusively at home. She supports the idea of bilingual education, based on her past experience. She sited, first of all, that in Canada, two of their Providences actually have English and French as official languages, so it makes sense to learn both the languages. She also said that people knowing both of the languages would have more job opportunities, especially in the government. Knowing both languages also allowed you to appreciate the French culture, and it's role in Canadian history and today. Furthermore, she feels that by learning two languages, she feels more worldly and intelligent, and learned valuable problem-solving skills when trying to learn French, that she could apply to other topics. She said that learning one language also opened the door to learning other languages, like Spanish, which came easier to her. She said that they did not have formal French lessons until 7th grade, but instead picked up the language as they were learning other topics, like Math and Science. This allowed them to learn the core subjects, while taking the baby steps to learning a new language. She also emphasized that learning another language allows her to think in a different, unique way, because she had to think in a different way in order to be able to learn French and her class subjects at the same time.
Person 2
This person was not a fan of bilingual education, beyond the point of making sure that Spanish speaking students learn how to speak English. She believed that if they are a new student that moved here, they are expected to learn to speak English because this is America, and we speak English here. So bilingual education should only be used to teach Spanish students how to speak English. She did not like the idea of school systems having to spend extra money to help the students learn English however. She found it annoying that we had to do extra work to help them. She is a fan of the immersion programs that teach all the subjects, but in English; so not just intensive English instruction. She believes being able to speak English should be mandatory, because if you want to get a job and get ahead in our country, you have to speak English. She also does not think that we should have to change our culture to fit theirs; they can have their culture at home. She is not a fan of instructions or products that have two languages on them either. But, she expects the same of us if we move to a different culture. She mentioned that if one moved to Germany, they should expect us to learn German if we want to live there.
Person 3
This person was also a fan of bilingual education. Learning another language helps you understand others and their culture, which is important in a country as diverse as America. Learning another language is also important in today's global economy. Jobs are more often requiring travel to different countries and communicating with different people, so it is important to know different languages. She also mentioned that learning a different language opens up a different way of thinking for people. That way of thinking and problem solving makes kids smarter as they learn new words and new rules that you can apply to other areas.
Out of the people I interviewed, it seems like those in favor of bilingual education really liked the cultural aspect of it and the idea that it will help you with your career in the future. Bilingual education also encourages a unique, problem-solving way of thinking that can be applied to other subject areas. Those not in favor of bilingual education, understand the need for it, but only as a tool to help non-English speaking students learn English. English should be the only language used to teach topics in schools and we should not have to change our culture to accommodate theirs.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Readings for October 2nd
Readings for School and Society this week focused on the idea of private schools. We were asked to focus on the question: Should parent's be able to choose which public school their child goes to? Or if they go to a public school at all really. The idea of freedom of choice makes most of us say yes right away, but the issue is a bit more complicated than that.
Myth 7
School choice and competition work to improve all schools. Vouchers, tuition tax credits and charter schools inject competition.
Competition is a good thing right? It makes everyone work harder and, in the end, everyone does better. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Everyone believes that public schools are failing and offering private schools might help them step up their game. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If you compare public and private schools with similar populations, public schools are actually doing better. They might have more qualified teachers. But private schools look like they are doing better because they select their students and tend to draw the high achieving, motivated students (or at least their parents). When kids like this leave poorly performing public schools, those schools do take a hit. That talent and motivation is lost to the public schools other students, which mean they do worse. I don't really think the competition is helping public schools per se, but I still lean toward the idea that parent's have the freedom to choose for their child. But like what was discussed in class, who pays for that?
Myth 39
Tuition tax credits for families that choose private schools are appropriate.
In order to pay for parents who choose to send their kids to private schools, the government has come up with tax credits and vouchers among other things. This becomes a problem though when tax money is used to fund kids going to religious schools-it brings into question the separation of church and state.
Myth 40
Tuition tax credits and education saving accounts are helping many poor children escape failing public schools.
This myth expands on the idea of the last one, the idea of giving money to poor children who are attending failing schools so they can go to a successful private school is great, but often it does not work that way. No one really knows where the money that is collected from taxes really goes. Like in Arizona, no one knows who gets the 'scholarships.' No one knows if they children who change schools are actually benefiting in terms of education. There is no evidence that this works! The idea is a nice one, but I don't think the money is really going where it needs to. I think we are just helping well off families send their children to private schools, not poor students. Plus, some of the scholarships are only like $3,000. That in no way covers the cost of tuition and transportation for a poor student attending a private school. I think they should just take the money from taxes and help and public schools improve their performance. But then you need to make sure that the wealth is spread around. Taxes collected from rich communities already probably have a good public school, so send the money to public schools that are inner city and struggling.
Myth 7
School choice and competition work to improve all schools. Vouchers, tuition tax credits and charter schools inject competition.
Competition is a good thing right? It makes everyone work harder and, in the end, everyone does better. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Everyone believes that public schools are failing and offering private schools might help them step up their game. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If you compare public and private schools with similar populations, public schools are actually doing better. They might have more qualified teachers. But private schools look like they are doing better because they select their students and tend to draw the high achieving, motivated students (or at least their parents). When kids like this leave poorly performing public schools, those schools do take a hit. That talent and motivation is lost to the public schools other students, which mean they do worse. I don't really think the competition is helping public schools per se, but I still lean toward the idea that parent's have the freedom to choose for their child. But like what was discussed in class, who pays for that?
Myth 39
Tuition tax credits for families that choose private schools are appropriate.
In order to pay for parents who choose to send their kids to private schools, the government has come up with tax credits and vouchers among other things. This becomes a problem though when tax money is used to fund kids going to religious schools-it brings into question the separation of church and state.
Myth 40
Tuition tax credits and education saving accounts are helping many poor children escape failing public schools.
This myth expands on the idea of the last one, the idea of giving money to poor children who are attending failing schools so they can go to a successful private school is great, but often it does not work that way. No one really knows where the money that is collected from taxes really goes. Like in Arizona, no one knows who gets the 'scholarships.' No one knows if they children who change schools are actually benefiting in terms of education. There is no evidence that this works! The idea is a nice one, but I don't think the money is really going where it needs to. I think we are just helping well off families send their children to private schools, not poor students. Plus, some of the scholarships are only like $3,000. That in no way covers the cost of tuition and transportation for a poor student attending a private school. I think they should just take the money from taxes and help and public schools improve their performance. But then you need to make sure that the wealth is spread around. Taxes collected from rich communities already probably have a good public school, so send the money to public schools that are inner city and struggling.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Reading for October 9th
The readings for this week focused on the idea of bilingual classrooms, and we were asked for focus on the question: Should students be taught only in English in Schools?
Myth 20:
Immersion programs are better for ELL students than bilingual classrooms
The first good point that this article makes is that there is no research to back the claim that bilingual classroom are harmful to ELL students. On the contrary, bilingual classrooms allow students to still move forward learning material, in their native language, while beginning to understand English in the classroom. Readings that I have done for other classes claim that it takes ELL students need at least a year to grasp and understand academic language. If this is true, then ELL students will struggle to learn anything for a whole year if they are in an English only classroom. Personally, I also think it is just great to know two different languages. I think if you are bilingual, you have another, unique way to look at something. This different way of looking at things will only benefit the students in my opinion.
Myth 21:
Preserving heritage language among ELL students is bad for them.
This doesn't even make sense to me to be quite honest. In my opinion, preserving heritage can never be a bad thing. Isn't that what America is all about? We are the melting pot, that also hangs onto unique parts of everywhere that we come from. Letting ELL students speak their native language helps them learn and feel comfortable in their school environment; it doesn't prevent them from learning language. Plus, how rude is it to ask someone to just forget their heritage or to ignore it? To not acknowledge or practice it? That just seems wrong-it is a unique part of the students and we should not ask them to disregard it.
Myth 20:
Immersion programs are better for ELL students than bilingual classrooms
The first good point that this article makes is that there is no research to back the claim that bilingual classroom are harmful to ELL students. On the contrary, bilingual classrooms allow students to still move forward learning material, in their native language, while beginning to understand English in the classroom. Readings that I have done for other classes claim that it takes ELL students need at least a year to grasp and understand academic language. If this is true, then ELL students will struggle to learn anything for a whole year if they are in an English only classroom. Personally, I also think it is just great to know two different languages. I think if you are bilingual, you have another, unique way to look at something. This different way of looking at things will only benefit the students in my opinion.
Myth 21:
Preserving heritage language among ELL students is bad for them.
This doesn't even make sense to me to be quite honest. In my opinion, preserving heritage can never be a bad thing. Isn't that what America is all about? We are the melting pot, that also hangs onto unique parts of everywhere that we come from. Letting ELL students speak their native language helps them learn and feel comfortable in their school environment; it doesn't prevent them from learning language. Plus, how rude is it to ask someone to just forget their heritage or to ignore it? To not acknowledge or practice it? That just seems wrong-it is a unique part of the students and we should not ask them to disregard it.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Readings for Sept 25th
This weeks readings focus on other factors that may influence student success in school.
Myth 17
This myth focuses on class size, and whether or not having a smaller class size is actually beneficial to students. This is a hot topic right now, as school districts are in the middle of budget crisis and trying to find ways to get by with the money they have. By putting more students in one classroom, there are less teachers to pay and resources that they need to buy, so the schools save money. Research has shown that smaller classrooms are actually better, especially with younger grades. The more students you add to a classroom, the more likely you are to have class disruptions and off task students, plus students don't get that one on one attention that many students need to master topics. I think that having extremely small classroom, like 15 students is a bit excessive, but they should be under 30 at least. Anything over that and I think they need to start making bigger classrooms! You might not be able to physically fit that many students in a room.
Myth 23
This myth questions the benefit of homework. Research has shown that older students benefit from having a reasonable amount of homework, but younger grades do not. It may in fact put students off school. I can understand this. I really don't understand why you would give a first grader hours of homework anyway; do they really have the attention span to do that much homework? I think that homework is necessary, especially in older grades in order to practice and master a topic like calculus, but there needs to be a balance and kids can't be overwhelmed, especially when the students are younger. I like the idea the article had though-group projects that require teamwork and critical thinking are practical and teach skills that will be used in the workforce.
Myth 25
This myth focuses on school uniforms. People like school uniforms because it creates a sense of equality and camaraderie among the students. But people against it say that students can't show their creativity then. I have heard of schools that require uniforms Monday-Thursday, but then the kids can wear whatever they want on Friday. I think this is a practical compromise. But as the article pointed out, there really isn't any good data to support claims either way. So I don't really support uniforms, but I do agree with the dress codes that most schools have. High schoolers do not need to be wearing spaghetti strap tank tops and 'booty shorts.' It can be distracting to other students.
Myth 26
This myth questions whether adding more school days or having longer school days would help increase the success of our students. I know my cousin goes to school for more of the year than I ever did, and she doesn't mind, but I wonder if it really does lead to higher achievement. I don't think the extra hour schools add is really always spent learning. Plus those schools that add only 5 minutes to each class really can't fit too much more learning into 5 minutes. So I think that making students go to school longer may not have as dramatic an impact as people want it to. Plus, the article made a good point that extra curriculars are really affected. So is it really worth it to change the whole school year schedule, when it probably won't even make that much of a difference?
Myth 28
This myth discusses the idea of zero tolerance. With the rising violence in schools over the past few years, I can understand why schools want to institute this to ensure safety to both students and teachers. But after reading the cases in the article, I question how practical they are? Plus, zero tolerance has been in affect for some time, and violence is not going down. The students that get expelled or suspended for small infractions have long term negative effects. They have a negative view of school and may even have more behavior problems later. So while I understand the idea behind zero tolerance and why schools want to institute it, I don't think it is working. I am not really sure how to fix this though...
Myth 29
This myth questions whether kindergarten and preschool are actually worth it? There is questionable evidence on both sides and many question whether the money spent is worth it. Some claim that the students that go through preschool and kindergarten become productive members of society and the pay back is greater than the money put in . There is also evidence of long term benefits of kindergarten and preschool, especially if the students continue to have good teachers. Personally, I think kindergarten and preschool are well worth it, especially for low income students who might not get that kind of mental stimulation at home. This allows them to be up to par with students whose parents have given them access to learning materials throughout their childhood.
Myth 17
This myth focuses on class size, and whether or not having a smaller class size is actually beneficial to students. This is a hot topic right now, as school districts are in the middle of budget crisis and trying to find ways to get by with the money they have. By putting more students in one classroom, there are less teachers to pay and resources that they need to buy, so the schools save money. Research has shown that smaller classrooms are actually better, especially with younger grades. The more students you add to a classroom, the more likely you are to have class disruptions and off task students, plus students don't get that one on one attention that many students need to master topics. I think that having extremely small classroom, like 15 students is a bit excessive, but they should be under 30 at least. Anything over that and I think they need to start making bigger classrooms! You might not be able to physically fit that many students in a room.
Myth 23
This myth questions the benefit of homework. Research has shown that older students benefit from having a reasonable amount of homework, but younger grades do not. It may in fact put students off school. I can understand this. I really don't understand why you would give a first grader hours of homework anyway; do they really have the attention span to do that much homework? I think that homework is necessary, especially in older grades in order to practice and master a topic like calculus, but there needs to be a balance and kids can't be overwhelmed, especially when the students are younger. I like the idea the article had though-group projects that require teamwork and critical thinking are practical and teach skills that will be used in the workforce.
Myth 25
This myth focuses on school uniforms. People like school uniforms because it creates a sense of equality and camaraderie among the students. But people against it say that students can't show their creativity then. I have heard of schools that require uniforms Monday-Thursday, but then the kids can wear whatever they want on Friday. I think this is a practical compromise. But as the article pointed out, there really isn't any good data to support claims either way. So I don't really support uniforms, but I do agree with the dress codes that most schools have. High schoolers do not need to be wearing spaghetti strap tank tops and 'booty shorts.' It can be distracting to other students.
Myth 26
This myth questions whether adding more school days or having longer school days would help increase the success of our students. I know my cousin goes to school for more of the year than I ever did, and she doesn't mind, but I wonder if it really does lead to higher achievement. I don't think the extra hour schools add is really always spent learning. Plus those schools that add only 5 minutes to each class really can't fit too much more learning into 5 minutes. So I think that making students go to school longer may not have as dramatic an impact as people want it to. Plus, the article made a good point that extra curriculars are really affected. So is it really worth it to change the whole school year schedule, when it probably won't even make that much of a difference?
Myth 28
This myth discusses the idea of zero tolerance. With the rising violence in schools over the past few years, I can understand why schools want to institute this to ensure safety to both students and teachers. But after reading the cases in the article, I question how practical they are? Plus, zero tolerance has been in affect for some time, and violence is not going down. The students that get expelled or suspended for small infractions have long term negative effects. They have a negative view of school and may even have more behavior problems later. So while I understand the idea behind zero tolerance and why schools want to institute it, I don't think it is working. I am not really sure how to fix this though...
Myth 29
This myth questions whether kindergarten and preschool are actually worth it? There is questionable evidence on both sides and many question whether the money spent is worth it. Some claim that the students that go through preschool and kindergarten become productive members of society and the pay back is greater than the money put in . There is also evidence of long term benefits of kindergarten and preschool, especially if the students continue to have good teachers. Personally, I think kindergarten and preschool are well worth it, especially for low income students who might not get that kind of mental stimulation at home. This allows them to be up to par with students whose parents have given them access to learning materials throughout their childhood.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Readings for Sept 11
Teacher factors that influence student's success
Myth 9
This myth focuses on the fact that people believe that teachers are the most important influence on a child's education. I think that it is true that teachers can influence a child's learning, but there are a lot of other factors that influence a child's academic growth such as SES, home environment and even motivation. So if students do poorly, I think it is unfair to judge a teacher and say it is their fault, because there are many things outside of their control. I think the best thing a teacher can do is try to motivate students.
Myth 10
Teachers in the US are paid well.
This I know is untrue, just based on what I have heard from high school classmates that are now teachers. Honestly though, I think most teachers become teachers for reasons that are not related to money, which is a good. But as the article said, the academic talent that enters the teaching profession could be even better if teachers had more salaries and benefits. I think teachers work very hard to educate students and deserve to have good pay and benefits.
Myth 11
Merit Pay is a good way to increase the performance
Merit pay is often based on how a teacher's students do on national tests, which I don't think is very fair. One test at one point in time is not a good estimate of the success of the teacher throughout the whole year. There is a valid problem with that I think. Plus these programs like Race to the Top narrows the curriculum and increase competition among teachers and could encourage cheating. I think the merit pay idea puts negative pressure on teachers so that they are so worried about keeping their job that they don't take the time to actually be a good teacher.
Myth 12
Teachers that serve the poor are not very talented.
I don't think I necessarily agree with this-I do however think that the turn over rate of teachers in poor schools is high and they don't have the resources that they need to be the great teachers we need them to be. The article also made a good point that teachers are not prepared or taught how to work in poor schools. If we want teachers to be successful and really help the students, we need to prepare them well.
Myth 14
Subject Matter Knowledge is the most important asset a teacher can possess.
This I really disagree with, I think teachers need so much more than just the knowledge of what they have to teach. They need to be able to manage their class, develop skills and confidence in their students and most importantly, know how to motivate their students which is critical to their success.
Myth 15
Teacher's unions are responsible for much poor school performance.
Teacher's unions have shaped working conditions we know and have today. Studies have actually shown that there is lower student achievement when there aren't any teacher's unions. This kind of makes sense to me. If a teacher knows they get due process and are protected in their work environment, they are less worried and can put more time and effort into teaching and the students win.
Myth 49
IQ tests can predict success in life.
I don't believe this at all. First of all, we do not even have a solid definition of what intelligence is, so how can we actually test it with one test? Plus, what is success in life? I think that being a contributing member of society in some way is success, and you do not need a great IQ to do that. Plus, motivation, social skills and work ethic are really important to success and something a teacher could work on with their students, but is not something can can really be tested for.
Myth 9
This myth focuses on the fact that people believe that teachers are the most important influence on a child's education. I think that it is true that teachers can influence a child's learning, but there are a lot of other factors that influence a child's academic growth such as SES, home environment and even motivation. So if students do poorly, I think it is unfair to judge a teacher and say it is their fault, because there are many things outside of their control. I think the best thing a teacher can do is try to motivate students.
Myth 10
Teachers in the US are paid well.
This I know is untrue, just based on what I have heard from high school classmates that are now teachers. Honestly though, I think most teachers become teachers for reasons that are not related to money, which is a good. But as the article said, the academic talent that enters the teaching profession could be even better if teachers had more salaries and benefits. I think teachers work very hard to educate students and deserve to have good pay and benefits.
Myth 11
Merit Pay is a good way to increase the performance
Merit pay is often based on how a teacher's students do on national tests, which I don't think is very fair. One test at one point in time is not a good estimate of the success of the teacher throughout the whole year. There is a valid problem with that I think. Plus these programs like Race to the Top narrows the curriculum and increase competition among teachers and could encourage cheating. I think the merit pay idea puts negative pressure on teachers so that they are so worried about keeping their job that they don't take the time to actually be a good teacher.
Myth 12
Teachers that serve the poor are not very talented.
I don't think I necessarily agree with this-I do however think that the turn over rate of teachers in poor schools is high and they don't have the resources that they need to be the great teachers we need them to be. The article also made a good point that teachers are not prepared or taught how to work in poor schools. If we want teachers to be successful and really help the students, we need to prepare them well.
Myth 14
Subject Matter Knowledge is the most important asset a teacher can possess.
This I really disagree with, I think teachers need so much more than just the knowledge of what they have to teach. They need to be able to manage their class, develop skills and confidence in their students and most importantly, know how to motivate their students which is critical to their success.
Myth 15
Teacher's unions are responsible for much poor school performance.
Teacher's unions have shaped working conditions we know and have today. Studies have actually shown that there is lower student achievement when there aren't any teacher's unions. This kind of makes sense to me. If a teacher knows they get due process and are protected in their work environment, they are less worried and can put more time and effort into teaching and the students win.
Myth 49
IQ tests can predict success in life.
I don't believe this at all. First of all, we do not even have a solid definition of what intelligence is, so how can we actually test it with one test? Plus, what is success in life? I think that being a contributing member of society in some way is success, and you do not need a great IQ to do that. Plus, motivation, social skills and work ethic are really important to success and something a teacher could work on with their students, but is not something can can really be tested for.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Readings for September 11
Reading for September 11
Big Question: How do you define success in eduction?
Myth 1:
This myth seems to believe that international test scores could answer what success is. Tests compare countries on an international level to see how they compare in reading, math and science. The US is consistently behind top countries like China. People seems to think that this means we are not successful in school in America. But can one test really decide whether a student is successful? Plus the book states that if we eliminated low income schools from the stats, we, as a country would rank number one. Is it ok to remove low income schools just to make us look better? How about we work to help the low income schools do better.
Myth 8:
This myth looks at rankings of both colleges and the ideas of rankings for high school. Is it ok to rank high school? What measures are they using to determine that one high school is more successful than another? I don't think ranking schools against each other, especially when comparing public and private is really all that helpful.
Myth 32:
This myth states that general society thinks schools are being 'dumbed down.' We are less successful because children are more materialistic, less attentive and disrespectful. But are children really? Is there any evidence for this? These ideas lead to things like No Child Left Behind and NAEP testing, which actually shows that more people are taking the tests and succeeding. These ideas have also lead to CCSS, which is accused of narrowing the current curriculum. Personally I think that the standards do lead to a narrowed curriculum because the teachers teach to the test, and nothing more. Education should be more local and personalized.
Myth 45:
This myth discusses high school exit exams and their worth to predict how students will succeed in the future. Honestly I am not sure how one test will ready and prepare students to be successful workers in a global economy. I do not think it is possible. Plus, what is the cut off of this test? How do we measure competent vs incompetent? I think that all the money spent on creating the exams and implementing them could be better used for other things.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Readings for September 4th
Myth 38:
Education benefits children individually, not public in general
This myth has come about gradually, through the change in thinking of the government, companies and even individual parents. Public education was initially established as a way for children to increase their knowledge and gain skills so that they could become a contributing member of society and to act for the greater good of the 'democracy.' Education was a service to of the public good, not just individuals, but now public education is thought to inform students of basic skills that allow them to be a good member of society, for themselves, not for the public good. By viewing education this way, one student could benefits while another one loses and there is a loss of group values and goals, which means we fail to respond as a unit when a crisis happens.
This myth is easy to see in education now; many students attend school to better themselves and their own future, with little concern for how what they learn can help everyone overall. We all just want to better ourselves and get a good job. We think that this benefits society in a round-about way, and it probably does. But until we view education as something that benefits everyone, this myth will continue.
Myth 42:
All kids can learn
This myth is seem in mandates such as No Child Left Behind, and the idea of integration of all types of students into one classroom is a great idea. This article states correctly that not all children can be winners, sadly life does not work that way. Furthermore, it would be impossible to come up with a test that can tell us whether a child has 'mastered' a topic; kids are full of individual difference. Furthermore. with this idea, it leaves the door open to blame someone, usually the teachers when children fail. This myth is a grand optimistic idea, but reality is not this way and by adhering to it, we put more stress on teachers who, no matter how amazing they are, cannot work miracles and make everyone 'masters.' Especially of every topic. I think that everyone has a talent or area that interests them that they can become very good at and even masters off, but everyone can't be masters of everything.
Myth 43:
Produce more STEM graduates-our economy is suffering because our education system is not producing enough scientists, engineers and mathematicians.
This is something that I have heard a lot about. There are campaigns out that try to get young children involved and interested in the sciences before they even start school. This is being done because America is 'suffering' from lack of STEM grads The article brings up a good point-what is the definition of this suffering? Define STEM and the job types? There is not enough solid definitions to give good evidence that there is a shortage of STEM employees. There is also not enough evidence that there will be an abundance of STEM jobs in the future. This emphasis on STEM training and education in schools is pushing out education in other areas like literature and social sciences, which creates understanding and informed action in people. We need a balance in education, one that includes STEM, but also other areas because there is no guarantee that we will only need STEM students for only STEM jobs in the future. Although I do personally believe that technology is a hugely growing field. Just look at the new technology in the last 5 years. I think there will continue to be a demand for STEM employees in the future, but it is unwise to put all your eggs in one basket.
Myth 44:
Import scientists and engineers because our education system cannot produce enough of them.
This myth is closely linked to the previous myth, with companies again saying we do not have enough computer science degrees to fill the jobs, so companies need permission to import workers. The companies blame public schools, saying that US students are uninterested or unprepared, but numbers show that the supply of graduates with STEM degrees remains strong and their wages have remained stagnant over the past few years, indicating that the field is not growing like the companies claim. This myth seems to be companies just trying to get foreign workers who would increase American unemployment and lower wages of those already working. Companies should really just hire the Americans with the STEM degrees who are currently unemployed and looking for jobs. I again believe that the technology industry will grow in the future, but if schools keep producing the number of STEM graduates they say they are, then we should not have a problem filling the work positions with American graduates.
Myth 50:
Schools are wasting time trying to teach problem solving, creativity and general thinking skills. They would be better off teaching facts needed to succeed in school and later in life.
This myth sounded ridiculous to me at first. I was like, how can you even teach that, and then I immediately though, wait, that needs to be in school, you can't just teach facts! Apparently, according to the article, problem solving and creativity can be taught, but with the movement to more test based classrooms and CCSS high stakes tests, teachers are spending less time on creativity and more time just teaching facts so their students are prepared to takes big exams. This is sad. Collaborative classrooms that are discussion based and allow kids to partake in creative thinking and problems solving are necessary to create well rounded and prepared human beings. Teachers need the freedom to educate the students in their classroom, not just prepare them for a test. I sincerely hope that the life skills of creativity and problem solving never disappear from the classroom.
Education benefits children individually, not public in general
This myth has come about gradually, through the change in thinking of the government, companies and even individual parents. Public education was initially established as a way for children to increase their knowledge and gain skills so that they could become a contributing member of society and to act for the greater good of the 'democracy.' Education was a service to of the public good, not just individuals, but now public education is thought to inform students of basic skills that allow them to be a good member of society, for themselves, not for the public good. By viewing education this way, one student could benefits while another one loses and there is a loss of group values and goals, which means we fail to respond as a unit when a crisis happens.
This myth is easy to see in education now; many students attend school to better themselves and their own future, with little concern for how what they learn can help everyone overall. We all just want to better ourselves and get a good job. We think that this benefits society in a round-about way, and it probably does. But until we view education as something that benefits everyone, this myth will continue.
Myth 42:
All kids can learn
This myth is seem in mandates such as No Child Left Behind, and the idea of integration of all types of students into one classroom is a great idea. This article states correctly that not all children can be winners, sadly life does not work that way. Furthermore, it would be impossible to come up with a test that can tell us whether a child has 'mastered' a topic; kids are full of individual difference. Furthermore. with this idea, it leaves the door open to blame someone, usually the teachers when children fail. This myth is a grand optimistic idea, but reality is not this way and by adhering to it, we put more stress on teachers who, no matter how amazing they are, cannot work miracles and make everyone 'masters.' Especially of every topic. I think that everyone has a talent or area that interests them that they can become very good at and even masters off, but everyone can't be masters of everything.
Myth 43:
Produce more STEM graduates-our economy is suffering because our education system is not producing enough scientists, engineers and mathematicians.
This is something that I have heard a lot about. There are campaigns out that try to get young children involved and interested in the sciences before they even start school. This is being done because America is 'suffering' from lack of STEM grads The article brings up a good point-what is the definition of this suffering? Define STEM and the job types? There is not enough solid definitions to give good evidence that there is a shortage of STEM employees. There is also not enough evidence that there will be an abundance of STEM jobs in the future. This emphasis on STEM training and education in schools is pushing out education in other areas like literature and social sciences, which creates understanding and informed action in people. We need a balance in education, one that includes STEM, but also other areas because there is no guarantee that we will only need STEM students for only STEM jobs in the future. Although I do personally believe that technology is a hugely growing field. Just look at the new technology in the last 5 years. I think there will continue to be a demand for STEM employees in the future, but it is unwise to put all your eggs in one basket.
Myth 44:
Import scientists and engineers because our education system cannot produce enough of them.
This myth is closely linked to the previous myth, with companies again saying we do not have enough computer science degrees to fill the jobs, so companies need permission to import workers. The companies blame public schools, saying that US students are uninterested or unprepared, but numbers show that the supply of graduates with STEM degrees remains strong and their wages have remained stagnant over the past few years, indicating that the field is not growing like the companies claim. This myth seems to be companies just trying to get foreign workers who would increase American unemployment and lower wages of those already working. Companies should really just hire the Americans with the STEM degrees who are currently unemployed and looking for jobs. I again believe that the technology industry will grow in the future, but if schools keep producing the number of STEM graduates they say they are, then we should not have a problem filling the work positions with American graduates.
Myth 50:
Schools are wasting time trying to teach problem solving, creativity and general thinking skills. They would be better off teaching facts needed to succeed in school and later in life.
This myth sounded ridiculous to me at first. I was like, how can you even teach that, and then I immediately though, wait, that needs to be in school, you can't just teach facts! Apparently, according to the article, problem solving and creativity can be taught, but with the movement to more test based classrooms and CCSS high stakes tests, teachers are spending less time on creativity and more time just teaching facts so their students are prepared to takes big exams. This is sad. Collaborative classrooms that are discussion based and allow kids to partake in creative thinking and problems solving are necessary to create well rounded and prepared human beings. Teachers need the freedom to educate the students in their classroom, not just prepare them for a test. I sincerely hope that the life skills of creativity and problem solving never disappear from the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)