Another PAPER!!!!!
(I don't blame you, I probably wouldn't want to read it either.)
This one was about Educational Issues. It used this book:
We had to pick our top ten from this selection.
Well, here are mine.
I grew up with two educators as parents. This is why I was
absolutely positive, that although I did not know what I wanted to do with my
life, I knew that I would not be a teacher. My dad was a HS History teacher,
became department head, director of personnel, and then superintendent of a
large white, upper and middle class Long Island school district. I remember him
studying and in school for his doctorate. Mom, in contrast, was a career
kindergarten teacher in an austerity district 30 minutes away. I have always
been affected by the controversies in education, and by people who took sides.
This explains why I didn’t ‘officially’ begin teaching until forty. My own
‘philosophy’, and history with this profession, like my peers, has been a
lifetime in the making. It has been rewarding to see how many others have
devoted considerable thought and energy to this topic though out history and in
the present day. One last comment before I begin, I do appreciate these books.
I have 7 or 8 of the Taking Sides titles in my classroom. They are the basis
for debate or research for my accelerated Health students.
I will begin, aka Letterman, with #10. As with any ranking
system, I feel good about the reasons for putting my top couple and my bottom
couple, the middle ones are a bit more of a mélange. I have occasionally
inserted links since I post these on my blog which chronicles my work towards
my M. Ed.
Can Zero Tolerance
Violate a Students Rights? My initial reaction, to even the premise, is
that Zero Tolerance violates ANY person’s rights. It negates the context of any
act. This is ‘all the more’ important when considering youth. Common sense,
context, and whenever possible, knowledge of the motivation, should all be
considered. These policies trap the school leaders into applying totally
inappropriate measures because to do otherwise would mean writing a policy so
wrought with exceptions, it would no longer be Zero Tolerance. The conundrum. A
first
grader who bites a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun, may indeed need some
guidance, I don’t know that, or they may be a gifted 7 year-old artist, but
they do NOT pose a threat to the safety of their peers or community (albeit the
Health Educator in me wishes that 7 year-old did not consider Pop-Tarts a
breakfast food, and that schools did not provide it as one, the real fear being
early onset diabetes, and poor nutrition which can affect learning).
Unfortunately, the case argued in this chapter, revolves
around a strip search for OTC pills. OTC drug use and abuse are a major concern
today. Although these were super ibuprofen and naproxen, they could definitely
be risky, and should have only well documented and regulated use within a
school. Was the strip search warranted? I don’t know, it doesn’t sound like it
BUT here is the common sense part. Could she have been held in the nurse’s office
until a parent or guardian was contacted and available to come to the school to
be a part of the decision? Might that path also lead to the same inevitable
conclusion? Because this case involves
an intimate search, he takes away from the more common uses of zero tolerance.
I have very strong feeling about Hon. Clarence Thomas, and the nature of this
case just ignite these. The notion that ‘safety’ is preserved by searching
backpacks makes me think of a line from a film I use in class called “Bang Bang You’re
Dead!”. In it, the proverbial
do-good teacher asserts “It’s not what’s in a kid’s backpack that makes him
dangerous, it’s what is in his heart”. Thomas’ notion, although it has some
bearing, is one piece of the solution, but the implication that it creates
safety, is fundamentally wrong in my opinion and impossible to implement
without devastating consequences. The question then is how do large urban
schools with clear and present danger keep their schools safe? To me, this is
overwhelming and systemic and precisely why I put this as #10, no answers.
Next up as #9, Is the
Inclusive Classroom a Working Model? This is a massive topic with so many
conflicting issues within it. As many do, I agree with the premise,
wholeheartedly. The implementation creates a lot of conflict for me. Can public
schools afford this? …is the overarching concern. Within that is: can we afford
to spend so disproportionally? Can we afford to neglect then, our gifted and
talented? Who is more worthy? Inclusion creates tremendous support and
understanding in our students but they are not tested on that. Are the people
who give their days to the small group or one-on-one responsibility, at minimum
wage or slightly above, trained and therefore successful at this task? What is
the goal? These are just a sampling of questions.
Mara Sapon-Shevin
argues school climate. I whole-heartedly agree. I recall my own experience of
taking the l-o-n-g way to the bathroom in elementary school, in order to go by
the SPED room where there were autistic, CP, MR, deaf, etc children all jammed
in together and it looked like a circus show, totally unmanageable. I mean no
disrespect with the picture; this is how we were conditioned to think. We were
not allowed to talk about these ‘poor children’ in the classroom, the mystique
bred fear, and imaginative stories. Her strategies to create a positive
inclusive classroom seem complete, and should be the standard, handed to every
new teacher hired. However, with competing goals for education, are they
realistic? Again, a climate of
acceptance, courage, support, and honesty, although we want them to be
magically instilled in our children, we as a culture do not currently seem to
place them high on the public school’s mission. School Climate Leadership and
Facilitation was my previous M.Ed path at NEC. I left that because it lacked
support, and I came back to PSU continuing a Tech Integration focus.
I do love that Wade Carpenter chose to relate inclusion with
desegregation. I think through his impassioned argument is the thread that
having these mass ‘fixes’ doesn’t work, the notion of imposed equality is
fodder for oxymoron status. His plea resonates
with me, the school cannot ‘fix’ everything no matter how hard we try, and that
effort may actually get in the way of teaching and learning. As a Health
Educator, my class is often felt that it is
aplace where all kids can attend, like PE, or Art. I think this stems
from a persistent lack of understanding the difference between Health Ed and
PE, but in this case it works for my classroom. Since Health is NOT tested
currently, we are able to foster the classroom environment and it aligns beautifully with our holistic
health curriculum.
Number 8 is very interesting to me, it is only as low as 8
because I haven’t yet had a great deal of time to delve into it. I see it as
very topical, especially as we go through our Health Care Reform process, and
conversation. Is Privatization the Hope
of the Future? Maybe? My initial concerns are that business may not
understand education, that market fluctuations might then make education
fluctuations, but I believe there is a lot that the education systems can learn
and adapt for better management and to be more transparent.
Chris Whittle assertion that public schools lack imagination
and creativity to move forward seems right on. Public schools have evolved less
than any other institution I can think of, despite the huge resource of thinking
and research on the subject. This article is seven years old, his new ‘truths’
are more mainstream conversation as we explore the 21st Century
Learning Skills and realize that teachers no longer hold the content, it is
easily accessible elsewhere.
Henry Levin focuses too much on the Edison Schools, he has
to because there is little else out there to use as a a guideline. Just because
one effort is perhaps flawed, doesn’t mean we can not improve on it. He also
brings up the very real notion that we are not talking about education exclusively,
we are talking about politics, unions, economics, and even immigration. Therein
lies the block. I do not believe that radical transformation is necessarily the
way to go but even an attempt to make measureable movement becomes so
entrenched and stagnating. Some feel this is key in such an important
institution but in one so tragically behind, can we afford it? Can we afford it
in respect to all of those factors mentioned? And add in global
competitiveness? To me, it is more like clearly like the energy debate in that
realize that we can no longer rely on oil as the primary source, but many other
sources come with severe consequences. We must re-align our thinking from the
one-source fits all to multi-sources depending on geographic location (i.e. wind
in the flats of the Midwest), transitional sources, and continued efforts to
slow the pace of need. In education, we may need to include this model as a
part of the solution, in places where it is applicable.
Annnnnd now, heeere’s number 7 !!!! Are Undocumented Immigrants Entitled to Public Education? What is
that saying “Shall the sins against the father be laid upon the child?” I know
there is the biblical reference from Exodus but I am thinking more of the
Shakespeare quote: The sins of the
father are to be laid upon the children.
The Merchant of Venice
(3.5.1). Personal reflection, makes that a very frightening premise. Justice Brennan’s
argument comes down to, ‘does it serve the greater good’ to deny education to
these children? He argues it does not, and therefore they deserve an equal
education to other, legal, children of the U.S. I think that his ultimate
conclusion is evident in his rephrasing of the question. He does not refer to
them as ‘undocumented immigrants’; he replaces that with ‘undocumented
children’. The shift is evident and follows in his argument.
I don’t believe that the dissenting argument offers much relative to this
case. Justice Burger and the others, agree. They argue ‘no’ on the basis of the
constitution and whether the court should be required to ‘fix’ a social issue,
that may be caused by a lack of effectiveness of another part of the
government. In each of the sections, he begins with an acknowledgment of the
opposing premise, and agreement but then tweezes out the constitutionality as
against. In fact, he brings up the sturdiest arguments to me such as, is
education a right or privilege (sounds like the healthcare debate?), and
creating a ‘suspect class’ of ‘innocent’ children serves no purpose.
Number 6: Can Failing Schools Be Turned Around? This one is so
tough because it begs the question, that if they can’t, what’s the point? But
that is not really the argument. Some people may still be critical of criteria
used to determine ‘failing schools’ but I can’t imagine that anyone doesn’t
believes that they exist. Often it is the symptom of a social paradox. If a
school in a poverty stricken area is ‘failing’, instead of focusing on the
school, could the efforts be divided between the school’s improvements and the
reduction of poverty? I am reminded of
bell hooks, and her reminiscence of her southern black school filled with
virtue and determination to provide for the students because they knew that
education was deliver the kids from the cycle of poverty. Then she went on into
a desegregated environment, lacking in all that and disengaging.
The key elements used in ‘turning around’ schools, as proposed by Karin
Chenowith, are not revolutionary. Until a school is labeled failing, and
possible closure, financial punishment, until then, maybe we just don’t make
the effort as a community. She uses the term ‘galvanized’. The entire teaching,
learning, and greater community have to agree on the mission. If that occurs,
what could really prevent it from achieving a great deal of success?
Andy Smarick takes a more skeptical outlook and even implies that finding
the way to effectively turn around failing schools is akin to finding the cure
for cancer. I agree but in a way he did not intend. Although the cure for
cancer seems illusive, we have found ways to prevent, and at least greatly
reduce the impact, of certain cancers. The HPV vaccine prevents the leading
indicator for cervical cancer, a very deadly form of cancer. Can we also, refer
back to numero 7 as a reference, as a society, work on the causative factors?
If we continually look for the magic fix, we may be setting ourselves up. Maybe
some schools need to close and charters may be an option. These, along side of
the efforts of some communities to ‘galvanize’ for improvement, and maybe some
‘private sector managed’ schools, will yield an answer. But, this kind of
quilting of systems leads to the next issue on my list. Also, an interesting
blog from the DOE addressing various techniques: http://www.ed.gov/blog/topic/turnaround-schools/
Also, an NPR series on it: http://www.wbhm.org/News/2012/MSTurn
Gently moving into the top 5, Should Curriculum Be Standardized for
All? In relation to the previous topic, it seems almost like a requirement
so why do I want to scream NO at the top of my lungs? I am also internally
disappointed to hear one of Plato’s themes, distorted 9to me) to argue for YES.
In my interpretation of his theory, that there are ‘certain subject matters
that have universal qualities’, he is advocating for root learning that can
lead to anywhere since he felt that an educated person could go in any
direction they chose. I guess this could be seen as we all get the same
education and then branch out but, I don’t think he was arguing precise
curriculum, more general topics and depth.
The Paidela Curriculum offered by Mortimer Adler for Rediscovering the
Essence of Education seems so similar to Bloom, or a multitude of literacy
models, except tht it stays very limited. In Health Education we use the Health
Literacy pyramid. At the base is Core Concepts, which corresponds to his Column
One, but then we move on to Accessing Information, and Analyzing Influences, which
does not appear in his Column Two or Three. Instead his Column One seems to
represent acquiring knowledge through delivery, or introduction. His Column Two
is practice, or perhaps mastery, and his Column Three is application. This is
all good but it is all fairly basic, without the self-management, synthesizing,
creating new product, and solving problems with this understanding. And, I find
it horribly wrong to say that ‘nothing like this exists in education’. I
believe it does, it is called elementary school, the formation of the
foundation of learning but he completely ignores differentiated learning, and
learning styles. I think that any teacher sees, on a daily basis, that students
today have a variety or portholes in which they can learn. I can’t help but
think of an young student I had with Asperger’s Syndrome. He fixated on ships,
much teaching/learning had to be done through this ships. He was clearly
bright, later in HS was inducted to the National Honor Society, and is now
attending Maine Maritime Academy and doing very well. The path would have been
very different had we required him to follow the Columns instead of hi mind.
We can ignore the differentiation in our students any more than in our
teachers. Strengths should be nurtured and given due in the classroom. I am at
a bit of a loss to comment fully on John Holt. On the one hand, yes, I agree that
students should be active participants in their learning, and have some say in
it also. On the other hand, I am not sure I am ready for complete freedom he advocates;
I think there is an expansive middle ground worth exploring. I also disagree
with his premise of the ‘control’, and ‘harm’ teachers do.
Moving on to position number 4; Is No Child Left Behind a Flawed
Policy? Of course it is, if for no
other reason than it stills leaves unfunded mandates in place and we are still
trying to define the terms it is based on such as ‘adequate yearly progress’.
That alone doesn’t make it bad policy. It is the latest attempt at federal
school reform. I personally think that is backwards approach. Imposed school
reform, like anything else has a tough battle that takes energy away from the
intent.
As seems often the case, the federal government stepped in with policy
after feeling that states, and local authorities had not done the job,
therefore the feds had to. This tactic seems to invoke two previously mentioned
controversies, Zero Tolerance, in this case for failing schools, and Turn
Around, of those failing schools. As with any sweeping measure, some parts are
good, others not so much. Transparency, for instance, I think is good, in
context. It is simply a snapshot of the moment. Snapshots over time, give a
picture. Snapshots over time with accompanying narrative, give context and
meaning. Setting goals, requiring
accountability, and implementing intervention are all excellent, and should be
in place in education. It’s how it is done. Are the goals realistic, are the
tools in place for success, and is there built in periodic reflection, that all
too often forgotten step that can help guide,
is our intent is being met or maybe we need to look again.
Dianne Piche argues for NCLB. She sees agreement between the two sides on
almost all of the intent. She disagrees with the premise that states should
have control because she points to this as being an issue about the poor and
minorities and states have a questionable history of being able to create
equality. So, on this point, I am in agreement. The federal government has had
to step in, eventually, to create equality after states battle it out without
success. Whether it was gender, racial, or now sexuality based….the states will
begin the battle but eventually it must once again come to the federal bench to
parenthesize what equality means…..”all
men are created equal (including women, racial minorities, and one day sexual
minorities….etc)
Now we are into the Top Three!! Is Constructivism the Best Philosophy of
Education?
This seems a bit of a rehashing of the Kant
v. Locke perspectives. Experiences provide the context, I am not sure I can
even imagine an argument for this. Since watching some quantum physics, such as
What the Bleep Do We Know?
and this much shorter, simplistic,
version of parallel
universes, I doubt that anything is absolute knowledge. Why would we expect
that anyone could learn identically as we teach? or that any two students could
store the same information the same way? Everything is relative to our own
experience. Anyone who has spent anytime in a classroom knows this. You say a
direction, not even content, in as obvious a way possible, and three hands go
up to ask what the direction was. Yes, one was simply not listening, another
might ask just for attention, and one might have been distracted. Then the rest
that go off to carry out the direction, are all over the place, each certain
they heard and understood the direction. Alas, I do agree that Social Readiness
is the true barrier.
Jamin Carson, although this article is only 7
years old, seems to still believe that we have any control over how our
students receive content. He has not integrated this into his argument. In a
time when the teacher was the all-knowing delivery of content, perhaps there
was more possibility for the objectivism theory. His example of Romeo and
Juliet is dismissed before he delves into that students reasoning for his
seemingly mistaken understanding. Find where he took a turn and suggest another
view? In any case, pure constructivism is not really the goal as I see it, it
is what I like to call, ‘a leaning’. When we ‘lean in’ towards something, we
open the door to it and by doing so, we open our mind to it.
Getting closer! Number 2: This is where I get
a little crazy in conversations. Video games are ruining our kids, parents
shouldn’t allow them! Instead of fighting against what is, can we find a way to
incorporate it, find a benefit in education? Of course we can. Futile ranting
that doesn’t allow for incorporation, that makes me crazy. So the next title: Do Computers Negatively Affect Student
Growth?, to say the least, enticed me. We can not and do not, go backwards.
The world changes, each generation has a different perspective, different
tools. Perhaps that change is getting so fast we are struggling to keep up now.
This is breeding a lot of insecurity, and this is easy to see with technology.
The notion that the teacher has to turn to the students to solve a technical
glitch, that we are not the experts, they are. Why is this bad? So many more
students are engaged in learning because they have a way in now. So I have a
problem with the premise, in that I feel it implies that we are able to measure
today’s growth when we are yesterday’s product. Lowell Monke uses the example of the Oregon Trail
simulation, remember this article was written nearly a decade ago so it was
relevant. His argument is that the simulation can teach the value of resources,
and the strategic use of them but cannot instill the determination and courage
it took for those pioneers to make that journey. Duh! Of Course it can’t, it’s
a simulation, on a computer. Again, the premise sets up the argument in an
all-or-nothing fashion. The computer is
a tool for learning, for teaching, and for everything else. It is not a
complete replacement for the teacher. However, in terms of making the
allocation of resources, and it’s effect more ‘real’ to a 4th
grader, I believe it surpasses the teacher. Then he says that the skills a
student needs to enter the job market “can easily be learned in one year of
instruction in high school”. Really? Taught by whom? One of us quasi-dinosaurs?
Our students need to be embedded in the ever-changing computer and media tools.
Changing with the applications of technology is the skill they most need to be
adept in.
I do whole-heartedly agree about the
ecological impact. I remember that computers were going to cut down on paper
use but instead they have exponentially increased it. There is immense techno
trash as devices change and become obsolete so quickly. There are the work
forces that build these, and their conditions. These are all very real
ecological impacts that need attention, now. However they do not really apply
to the ‘student growth’ argument, more of a side bar, a very, very important
side bar for our world, just not limited to educational growth.
Frederick Hess realizes that technology is a
tool, not a cure. I am replacing the word technology instead of computers in
this section because the use of computers just further points out the pace that
has evolved. How many students use a computer, as we imagine and name them, in
class? Netbooks, Chrome books, tablets, readers, etc and far more common.
Let
the trumpets blare …we are at number 1: Is the “21st Century Skills” Movement Viable? I have not
been as excited as a teacher as I am about this movement, so let’s say, I am
biased, and very hopeful that the YES wins out on this one.
This is the educational philosophical battle
I feel most embedded in. My school is deep into NEASC preparation. We are
researching, writing, adopting, and preparing to implement. It is all wrapped
around these 21st Century Learning Skills, moving our students from
the dogma of passive learner to the active role of thinking! To begin, we have
to move the board (I really was tempted on the topic of School Boards being
obsolete), the administration, and the staff…and that’s just the work inside
the building! Public education has always had the component of educating
students to become productive members of society. Although Plato believed that
the core educational focuses would prepare for any later endeavor, our world
has become far more specialized. We prepare for what the future requires of
them, to the best of our ability. So, we ask employers what they need and what
they project to need and we revise to meet those needs. As mentioned in the
previous contender, #9, the pace of change is difficult to keep up with. I
believe this means that occasionally we have to leap. This is our leap.
Every school has those teachers, the veterans, who sit back and
wait. They have seen it all before, heard it all before, and now they look at
everything as a fad, a passing initiative and they may feel smug in that
knowledge and that they know they don’t have to buy in or change a thing, and
it will go away. We had one teacher in our school, who was also a veteran but
who somehow kept her mind and practice open to change. Her name was Barb Rennie.
My 21 year-old was lucky enough to have her for both 2nd and 3rd
grade. She retired years ago, and sadly, she is still the picture that comes to
mind, a rarity. She had taught every level, most subjects, and still gave new
ideas a try, a listen, and then she took from them what worked best, she
evolved. Is this the reason education has been so resistant to change, to
evolve, because there are too few Barb Rennie’s and too many who ‘have been there,
done that’ and have become resistant to change?
The argument that these skills have existed
forever is true, of course they have, but not as the product of our education.
Repositioning these skills, mobilizing around what is needed for our students, and
therefore making it a priority instead of a hopeful by-product.
The NEASC process we went through, the
Mission Statement was hauled out for all to see. It was carved into a new sign
above the entrance. We all got laminated copies of the ‘key terms’ within it,
all in an attempt to show the visiting committee that we were all aware of, and
following it, that students could recite it. Those signs are still up. This
time, the Core Values and Beliefs Indicator explicitly states that the adopted
mission statement will be used as a basis for policy, decision-making, and
budgeting. This was big because
typically these were not related in any way. I fought to get on the Core Values
committee. We have school-wide rubrics based on 21st Century Skills,
and they are embedded in out Mission Statement. I have asked School Board
members NOT to adopt these unless we are all agreeing to the process, that
these are our common goals, and our policies, decision-making and budgeting
will flow from them. I was never so scared in my job as that day. We were
discussing scheduling with our board members in favor of a 45 minute, 8 period
day and our staff members desperately trying to preserve block learning. In the
end, we can and will teach in a 30 min, 45 min, 50 min, 60 min, or 90 minute
time frame. We can do it if our role is to deliver content. If we are buying in
to the past years work we have done on 21st Century Skills, we need
time, this decision must align with our Mission Statement. Still, a work in
process. But just one reason why this was number 1 for me.
