The views of John C. Goodman in the article entitled "Educating Children of Katrina" did little more than get my blood pressure up. It is very obvious throughout this article that the author is an analyst rather than an educator. His suggestion for parents of children displaced by Hurricane Katrina to use the opportunity to seek out the very best of public education for their children at the expense of the government is nothing short of ludicrous. The thought of these families experiencing a major life event taking the time to seek out statistics of which schools offer the best education for their "type of child" is absolutely asinine in my opinion. While I think it is obvious that most parents desire the best education possible for their children, I would also hope that in the midst of a life trauma that the focus of the parents would be on the physical and emotional well-being of their families rather than individual school test scores.
My experience in dealing with educating the children of Katrina was first hand and was NOT focused at all on their educational well-being in the beginning nearly as much as making sure they were safe and back in a routine for security and structure as soon as possible. In Rutherford County Schools, the ATLAS program (Academic Time Leads to Achieving Students) is our way of implementing the federal McKinney-Vento Act. This act states that any child who is displaced or considered "homeless" by the definition of the the Act is entitled to enroll immediately in the public school where they are currently residing, that the school will assist in obtaining records from the previous school, that the child is immediately eligible for the federal free lunch program, and that the school will assist in connecting the family with necessary social services. It is the foundation of this act, and my own personal belief, that in order for children to perform and excel in school, their personal lives must be stable and as consistent at possible. If a child is worried about where he or she is going to sleep, get clothing, or receive his next meal, focus on education is greatly diminished. Furthermore, if children are tranferred from school to school due to repetitive moves, their gaps in learning are significanlty more pronounced. Therefore, the Act allows for children to remain in their school of origin for the remainder of a school year even if permanent housing is located out of that school's zone.
It seems to me that Mr. Goodman, like many other self-serving Americans, is looking for a way to benefit in some way financially from the natural disaster that befell so many people. While competition and accountability are very important in public education today, I believe that his priorities are out of line in this particular situation. As educators, in order to provide the best possible education to our children, we must teach the child and not the test. Additionally, we must meet the overall survival needs, those basic needs at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, before we can produce higher student performance and test scores.
Snell, K. (n.d.). Overview of the Rutherford county schools aTLAS program. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.state.tn.us/education/fedprog/doc/FPDTBO1ATLAS.ppt
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Blog Entry #4 - Multiculturalism in the Curriculum - 9/28/2009
As I have mentioned before, I was born and raised and received my schooling right here in Murfreesboro, TN. I went all the way through school, from primary up to high school, in the Murfreesboro City and Rutherford County school systems. Looking back over my school years, in primary and elementary grades, I cannot particularly pinpoint any policies or structures that were used as a means of social control. While I was in middle school, a group of people in accordance with school officials opened up a teen social club called "The Dry Dock"that encouraged teens to stay away from drugs and alcohol and still be socially accepted. In high school, I don't necessarily think of any particular curriculum or structure that exerted social control; however, one huge policy still stands out in my mind that exerted social control in my life in a negative way. As a senior in high school with outstanding grades and outstanding school attendance and participation, I found myself facing the crisis of an unplanned pregnancy. Rather than meeting the diverse needs of the entire student population, one of the policies that I recall vividly is that I was not allowed to be a part of the National Honor Society, even though I met all of the academic requirements.
In the school where I work today, I do not see social control exerted through curriculum or structure but again through the policies of the school. For instance, in our elementary school, clothing that promotes alcohol, drugs, wrestling or other "offensive topics" as determined by the administration are not allowed. Additionally, jeans with holes in them are not allowed when they are bought and worn that way to be fashionable. However, with the mixed socio-economic status of our school population, a written policy against "holes in pants" is not included in our handbook. Our administration feels that this could be viewed as discriminatory against lower income families who cannot afford to buy new pants when old ones become worn.
In looking back over what I have already written, I am thinking that I may be way off base in talking about multicultural curriculum, but then I remember that one of the points that I noted in the "New Immigration Stirs the Melting Pot" article is the idea that mutliculturalism applies to any minority, not just a minority race. Therefore, I was certainly considered a minority in high school as a pregnant teenager, people from other cultures are considered to be minorities, and the marginalized and underprivileged are also considered to be minorities. When people protest and stage rallies and public protests, many times it is not just for the interest of their particular minority group but for the interest of all minorities not receiving equal treatment.
Reading and pondering the article entitled "Toward a Centrist Curriculum" was eye-opening for me. I have always heard about core curriculum as such a negative concept, an idea in which the government is "taking over control of what we teach and when and how we teach it". However, the viewpoint of this particular article really gives some merit to the core curriculum idea from my perspective. The author begins with the assumption that all people are in agreement that children should be taught from an early age to respect all people and should be taught the basic foundations of diverse people and cultures. He goes on to discuss the difficulty teachers have in dealing with the vagueness about what children learn in each grade level at various schools and in various school systems. He points out that children have gaps in learning due to this vagueness, which occurs not only from one grade to the next but most certainly from one school or one district to the next in the case of a child transferring from one to another. The idea of having a core curriculum, particularly in the early grades of school, certainly seems to be a somewhat logical solution to this problem. The author points out that this core curriculum would mostly pertain to the literature and history portions of the curriculum, thereby giving all children the same common foundations and points of reference. This curriculum would also only take up fifty percent of the total curriculum, leaving teachers half of their time to individualize their instruction.
While core curriculum seems like a good starting point to equalize education for all and to correct some of the misinformation being taught in history classes in particular today, the author of the article entitled "Multiculturalism in School Curriculum" emphasizes the need for balance in this or any other approach to multicultural education. His main point is that by going to the extreme of taking each culture out and addressing it individually, the teacher would be segregating each culture even more so instead of intertwining all of the cultures together. He believes that all cultures should be taught through all units of study in order to have an effective multicultural curriculum. It is also his belief that presenting all cultures to a group of students allows them to utilize higher order thinking skills to compare and contrast all of the information and then synthesize their own opinions based on all of the facts. His opinion that teachers should provide students information and remain objective is great in theory, but all teachers are human and probably find it difficult to remain objective in actuality.
As an educator, I believe that it is my responsibility to teach all chidren to respect one another and to be tolerant of individual differences. While my view of history in America is almost inevitably biased by my own upbringing and experiences, it is also my obligation as a teacher to provide students with factual information about the history of our country and all of the events that have led up to this point in time. Hopefully, through my example and through the enviroment I foster in my classroom, students will begin to develop a multicultural attitude which they will carry with them beyond the walls of that room.
In the school where I work today, I do not see social control exerted through curriculum or structure but again through the policies of the school. For instance, in our elementary school, clothing that promotes alcohol, drugs, wrestling or other "offensive topics" as determined by the administration are not allowed. Additionally, jeans with holes in them are not allowed when they are bought and worn that way to be fashionable. However, with the mixed socio-economic status of our school population, a written policy against "holes in pants" is not included in our handbook. Our administration feels that this could be viewed as discriminatory against lower income families who cannot afford to buy new pants when old ones become worn.
In looking back over what I have already written, I am thinking that I may be way off base in talking about multicultural curriculum, but then I remember that one of the points that I noted in the "New Immigration Stirs the Melting Pot" article is the idea that mutliculturalism applies to any minority, not just a minority race. Therefore, I was certainly considered a minority in high school as a pregnant teenager, people from other cultures are considered to be minorities, and the marginalized and underprivileged are also considered to be minorities. When people protest and stage rallies and public protests, many times it is not just for the interest of their particular minority group but for the interest of all minorities not receiving equal treatment.
Reading and pondering the article entitled "Toward a Centrist Curriculum" was eye-opening for me. I have always heard about core curriculum as such a negative concept, an idea in which the government is "taking over control of what we teach and when and how we teach it". However, the viewpoint of this particular article really gives some merit to the core curriculum idea from my perspective. The author begins with the assumption that all people are in agreement that children should be taught from an early age to respect all people and should be taught the basic foundations of diverse people and cultures. He goes on to discuss the difficulty teachers have in dealing with the vagueness about what children learn in each grade level at various schools and in various school systems. He points out that children have gaps in learning due to this vagueness, which occurs not only from one grade to the next but most certainly from one school or one district to the next in the case of a child transferring from one to another. The idea of having a core curriculum, particularly in the early grades of school, certainly seems to be a somewhat logical solution to this problem. The author points out that this core curriculum would mostly pertain to the literature and history portions of the curriculum, thereby giving all children the same common foundations and points of reference. This curriculum would also only take up fifty percent of the total curriculum, leaving teachers half of their time to individualize their instruction.
While core curriculum seems like a good starting point to equalize education for all and to correct some of the misinformation being taught in history classes in particular today, the author of the article entitled "Multiculturalism in School Curriculum" emphasizes the need for balance in this or any other approach to multicultural education. His main point is that by going to the extreme of taking each culture out and addressing it individually, the teacher would be segregating each culture even more so instead of intertwining all of the cultures together. He believes that all cultures should be taught through all units of study in order to have an effective multicultural curriculum. It is also his belief that presenting all cultures to a group of students allows them to utilize higher order thinking skills to compare and contrast all of the information and then synthesize their own opinions based on all of the facts. His opinion that teachers should provide students information and remain objective is great in theory, but all teachers are human and probably find it difficult to remain objective in actuality.
As an educator, I believe that it is my responsibility to teach all chidren to respect one another and to be tolerant of individual differences. While my view of history in America is almost inevitably biased by my own upbringing and experiences, it is also my obligation as a teacher to provide students with factual information about the history of our country and all of the events that have led up to this point in time. Hopefully, through my example and through the enviroment I foster in my classroom, students will begin to develop a multicultural attitude which they will carry with them beyond the walls of that room.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Entry #3 Multiculturalism in Education 9/26/09
Wow, this is a very thought-provoking blog topic. I am a white American girl who was born and raised in the South. As such, this whole topic is very baffling to me, most likely because I have never struggled with the issues others face being part of a minority culture. Words such as inclusion, pluralism, and multiculturalism to me have always seemed interchangeable and somewhat synonymous, but after some further research, I have found out they are not.
Inclusion is defined as being a part of what everyone else is, being welcomed and embraced by others who belong. Based on this definition, it seems that Samual Taylor is saying that an American history based on inclusion is not possible. That would mean that everyone would be "included" in the view of history that white Americans hold, without taking other points of view into consideration.
Pluralism is a view of things that stand in opposition of one single method or one single interpretation of events. It seems to me that this might be more applicable to our current American history. Taylor discusses how difficult it is for children educated in American history to have pride or security in their past as it is currently being taught; however, it seems to me that if children are taught pluralistically in all subject areas, then they would be able to form their own opinions based on their point of view. Although as a white person, I am somewhat ashamed of the way my ancestors treated other races of people, it is what it is and I am grateful to be able to learn from my past in order to make better choices in my own future. If we don't teach children about the mistakes in our past, how are they going to prevent history from continuing to repeat itself?
Multiculturalism is defined as all cultures having equitable status without promotion of any one specific groups' beliefs as being the central focus. While to some extent this sounds like the most preferred method of teaching and educating, I am somewhat in agreement with Samuel Taylor in the idea that this may just not be possible. I definitely agree with his statement that it would be impossible to write a single American history that pleases all cultural groups. There is a catch-22 in America being a "melting pot" for so many cultures. On one hand, America is seen as the land of opportunity where people can come to have a better quality of life as an American, "melting" into the culture that is here. On the other hand, it seems that culture is seen very differently by different cultures of people that make up this nation. It also seems like many times, people come to America but want to bring their culture with them which can be somewhat confusing. If the culture you left is bad, why would you hang onto it so strongly?
As a school counselor in Smyrna, TN, I still see white students as the majority in my school building. We do have several other cultures represented and we have recently seen quite an increase in our Hispanic population. I am happy that children are able to come to our school and receive a quality education that I do not view as racist. However, I do have to admit that it is somewhat frustrating to try to communicate with the families of our Hispanic students. While I do not think that English is the "superior" language, I do see that it is the language that the majority of people in our country speak. I am more than willing to do what I can to communicate with Spanish-speaking people (which is often quite entertaining) and feel that I am accepting and patient with their limited English. I will admit that I do get frustrated sometimes when Hispanic parents get angry with me or with our office staff for not being able to communicate in Spanish with them. I think this might be an example of how multiculturalism can be hard to achieve because English is promoted as the central language of our country and people who choose to come here would be best served by learning the language.
While I realize that our country was founded on certain freedoms for everyone, "Pithissippi Burning" is an example of people who take those freedoms to the extreme. The book discussed in that article (The Brigade) is a prime example of the hate literature discussed in that article. The author of the article describes a book that sounds very racist and very filled with hatred. I am not sure where that type of writing has any place in American literature at all. It certainly is the exact opposite of inclusion or multiculturalism either one.
The article "Why Multiculturalism is Wrong" made absolutely no sense to me and left my head spinning. The conclusion I have come to is that education should serve to make each student a more-rounded individual equipped with knowledge along with critical thinking skills. With this combination, all cultures should be respected and somehow included in the history of this great nation. If ignorance breeds hatred, then the more knowledge we impart to our students, the more our children will be able to implement a multicultural society.
Carson, Rosa. (1999). Didja ever wonder what this multiculturalism thing's all about?
Retrieved September 26, 2009 from
http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/multiculturalism.html
Kids Together, Inc. (11 September, 209). Inclusion. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from
http://www.kidstogether.org/inclusion.htm
Pluralism. (22 August, 2009). Retrieved September 26, 2009 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism
Inclusion is defined as being a part of what everyone else is, being welcomed and embraced by others who belong. Based on this definition, it seems that Samual Taylor is saying that an American history based on inclusion is not possible. That would mean that everyone would be "included" in the view of history that white Americans hold, without taking other points of view into consideration.
Pluralism is a view of things that stand in opposition of one single method or one single interpretation of events. It seems to me that this might be more applicable to our current American history. Taylor discusses how difficult it is for children educated in American history to have pride or security in their past as it is currently being taught; however, it seems to me that if children are taught pluralistically in all subject areas, then they would be able to form their own opinions based on their point of view. Although as a white person, I am somewhat ashamed of the way my ancestors treated other races of people, it is what it is and I am grateful to be able to learn from my past in order to make better choices in my own future. If we don't teach children about the mistakes in our past, how are they going to prevent history from continuing to repeat itself?
Multiculturalism is defined as all cultures having equitable status without promotion of any one specific groups' beliefs as being the central focus. While to some extent this sounds like the most preferred method of teaching and educating, I am somewhat in agreement with Samuel Taylor in the idea that this may just not be possible. I definitely agree with his statement that it would be impossible to write a single American history that pleases all cultural groups. There is a catch-22 in America being a "melting pot" for so many cultures. On one hand, America is seen as the land of opportunity where people can come to have a better quality of life as an American, "melting" into the culture that is here. On the other hand, it seems that culture is seen very differently by different cultures of people that make up this nation. It also seems like many times, people come to America but want to bring their culture with them which can be somewhat confusing. If the culture you left is bad, why would you hang onto it so strongly?
As a school counselor in Smyrna, TN, I still see white students as the majority in my school building. We do have several other cultures represented and we have recently seen quite an increase in our Hispanic population. I am happy that children are able to come to our school and receive a quality education that I do not view as racist. However, I do have to admit that it is somewhat frustrating to try to communicate with the families of our Hispanic students. While I do not think that English is the "superior" language, I do see that it is the language that the majority of people in our country speak. I am more than willing to do what I can to communicate with Spanish-speaking people (which is often quite entertaining) and feel that I am accepting and patient with their limited English. I will admit that I do get frustrated sometimes when Hispanic parents get angry with me or with our office staff for not being able to communicate in Spanish with them. I think this might be an example of how multiculturalism can be hard to achieve because English is promoted as the central language of our country and people who choose to come here would be best served by learning the language.
While I realize that our country was founded on certain freedoms for everyone, "Pithissippi Burning" is an example of people who take those freedoms to the extreme. The book discussed in that article (The Brigade) is a prime example of the hate literature discussed in that article. The author of the article describes a book that sounds very racist and very filled with hatred. I am not sure where that type of writing has any place in American literature at all. It certainly is the exact opposite of inclusion or multiculturalism either one.
The article "Why Multiculturalism is Wrong" made absolutely no sense to me and left my head spinning. The conclusion I have come to is that education should serve to make each student a more-rounded individual equipped with knowledge along with critical thinking skills. With this combination, all cultures should be respected and somehow included in the history of this great nation. If ignorance breeds hatred, then the more knowledge we impart to our students, the more our children will be able to implement a multicultural society.
Carson, Rosa. (1999). Didja ever wonder what this multiculturalism thing's all about?
Retrieved September 26, 2009 from
http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/multiculturalism.html
Kids Together, Inc. (11 September, 209). Inclusion. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from
http://www.kidstogether.org/inclusion.htm
Pluralism. (22 August, 2009). Retrieved September 26, 2009 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Religion in Schools - Entry #2 - 9/15/09
After reading two internet articles discussing court cases addressing issues such as students observing a moment of silence daily in school, the teaching of different theories of how humans came into existence, and certain individuals refusal to salute the American flag in public schools, my initial reaction is along the lines of "Why can't we all just get along?". I am an American-born individual who practices Christianity, believe in creationism, and believe in showing patriotism to my country;however, because of my background and my beliefs, I think that I also have to believe in the first amendment right to free speech and the right of everyone to believe as they choose. Having said that, I also believe that I am entitled to not have other people's choice to disagree with my views forced onto me either.
In January of 2009, a judge in Illnois ruled that it was illegal for schools to require students to observe a moment of silence each day because some groups felt that having a moment of silence was a way to camouflage religion and insert it into public schools. Around the same time, a school board in Texas considered whether or not the questioning of various theories such as evolution and creationism could be evaluated by students based on the strengths and weaknesses of each theory. While these controversial cases are recent, similar issues have been presenting themselves in public schools for many years. In 1940 and again in 1943 courts heard the case of the Gobitas children, both members of the Jehovah's Witness faith, who refused to salute the American flag. The original ruling stated that the children were required to salute the flag, while the later ruling overruled this decision and said that they did not have to salute the flag.
All of these cases are very similar in that parents of public school students have concerns about what is being taught to their children in schools. While I do believe it is the responsibility of every parent to be an advocate for his or her child, I also believe that public education is a democracy of sorts where the majority sets the status quo. All of these cases are also very similar in that they each argue on both sides of the religion in schools debate. They are different in that some parents do not want their students to participate in a moment of silence because it implies some sort of religious observation (from their perspective) and others do not want their children to participate in science discussions or saying the Pledge of Allegiance because they feel it threatens or challenges their religious observations.
Religion in schools is quite an interesting quandry from my perspective. Our country and our first schools were formed on the basis of freedom of religion and teaching people Christianity. Joel Spring (2008) discusses in The American School how the idea of teaching people to read in the first settled colonies was for the main purpose of settlers being able to read and subsequently to obey the word of God. However, in later years, separation of church and state was addressed in the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, although it is very often a misunderstood concept, and that certainly changed the face of public education. It is interesting to see how times have changed over the years.
I am a person who feels very confident in my beliefs, and therefore, I do not feel threatened by others whose beliefs are not in agreement with mine. I also do not feel that my beliefs are going to be diminished by exposure to other views. It seems to me that people who are "extreme" in their beliefs are the people who feel that they must impose their views on others. Additionally, while I agree that in education, accommodations should be made for the special learning needs of students, I am not sure that accommodations are necessary for the differing social or religious beliefs of others. These cases seem to pertain to a small percentage of the overall public education population, so it seems to me that while exceptions can be made, changing the overall operations of the school to accommodate a few is a bit absurd.
In my six years as a classroom teacher I found that a moment of silence each morning was as much an opportunity for everyone to focus on the day as it was to say a silent prayer. Additionally, as I encountered students of the Jehovah's Witness faith, I would deal with each situation on an individual basis. While they were not forced to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, they were asked to stand during that time. Furthermore, if science is going to cover all theories of how humans came into existence, it seems only appropriate that all theories are equally analyzed and questioned, regardless of whether they are "religious" or not. While I do think that public education should always be available to all students, I also think that if parents have very "extreme" beliefs regarding religion, "non-religion", or other similar issues, private schools and homeschooling are always options.
All about history. (2002-2009). Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
In January of 2009, a judge in Illnois ruled that it was illegal for schools to require students to observe a moment of silence each day because some groups felt that having a moment of silence was a way to camouflage religion and insert it into public schools. Around the same time, a school board in Texas considered whether or not the questioning of various theories such as evolution and creationism could be evaluated by students based on the strengths and weaknesses of each theory. While these controversial cases are recent, similar issues have been presenting themselves in public schools for many years. In 1940 and again in 1943 courts heard the case of the Gobitas children, both members of the Jehovah's Witness faith, who refused to salute the American flag. The original ruling stated that the children were required to salute the flag, while the later ruling overruled this decision and said that they did not have to salute the flag.
All of these cases are very similar in that parents of public school students have concerns about what is being taught to their children in schools. While I do believe it is the responsibility of every parent to be an advocate for his or her child, I also believe that public education is a democracy of sorts where the majority sets the status quo. All of these cases are also very similar in that they each argue on both sides of the religion in schools debate. They are different in that some parents do not want their students to participate in a moment of silence because it implies some sort of religious observation (from their perspective) and others do not want their children to participate in science discussions or saying the Pledge of Allegiance because they feel it threatens or challenges their religious observations.
Religion in schools is quite an interesting quandry from my perspective. Our country and our first schools were formed on the basis of freedom of religion and teaching people Christianity. Joel Spring (2008) discusses in The American School how the idea of teaching people to read in the first settled colonies was for the main purpose of settlers being able to read and subsequently to obey the word of God. However, in later years, separation of church and state was addressed in the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, although it is very often a misunderstood concept, and that certainly changed the face of public education. It is interesting to see how times have changed over the years.
I am a person who feels very confident in my beliefs, and therefore, I do not feel threatened by others whose beliefs are not in agreement with mine. I also do not feel that my beliefs are going to be diminished by exposure to other views. It seems to me that people who are "extreme" in their beliefs are the people who feel that they must impose their views on others. Additionally, while I agree that in education, accommodations should be made for the special learning needs of students, I am not sure that accommodations are necessary for the differing social or religious beliefs of others. These cases seem to pertain to a small percentage of the overall public education population, so it seems to me that while exceptions can be made, changing the overall operations of the school to accommodate a few is a bit absurd.
In my six years as a classroom teacher I found that a moment of silence each morning was as much an opportunity for everyone to focus on the day as it was to say a silent prayer. Additionally, as I encountered students of the Jehovah's Witness faith, I would deal with each situation on an individual basis. While they were not forced to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, they were asked to stand during that time. Furthermore, if science is going to cover all theories of how humans came into existence, it seems only appropriate that all theories are equally analyzed and questioned, regardless of whether they are "religious" or not. While I do think that public education should always be available to all students, I also think that if parents have very "extreme" beliefs regarding religion, "non-religion", or other similar issues, private schools and homeschooling are always options.
All about history. (2002-2009). Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Historical Perspectives
Entry #1
In the PBS web article entitled "School: The Story of Public Education", innovators are described as "visionary individuals" who have been leaders in school reform and transformation. Meanwhile, John Taylor Gatto, on his website for the Odyessus Group, states his belief that businessmen such as Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller have actually been the makers of public schools.
While it seems to me that the focus of both "innovators" and "makers" is to produce contributing members of society, it would appear that "innovators" are interested in the process of how this is accomplished and the "makers" are more interested in the end result. It seems to me that the "innovators" goal is to "form" a child into a well-rounded person with qualities to help him or her to be successful in adulthood, while "makers" seem to have a goal of "conforming" a child to what would be seen as the "ideal" in the work force.
As a trained teacher as well as a certified school counselor, I tend to lean toward the viewpoint of the "innovators". I believe that if we educate and nurture the whole child, the end result will be a productive person in the workforce as well as a well-rounded individual who makes contributions to improve our society. Because we live in an ever-changing society, I tend to think that "conforming" children to a particular ideal is not sufficient preparation for the future. Rather, if we "form" children to be critical thinkers who, in the words of Booker T. Washington, value "hard work, persistence and self-discipline", then they will grow to be adults who are equipped to be successful regardless of the changes in the world of work. For instance, whether a worker is flipping hamburgers, working on an assembly line, teaching in a public or private school, or defending criminals, the dedication to and the pride in one's work should be the same.
One innovator who I feel has influenced, and continues to, truly influence public education as we know it today is Deborah Meier. Meier worked for many years to "fix" public education in the lower income areas of New York City. Much like Joe Clark whose story is told in the movie "Lean on Me", Meier was focused more on what the students in her assigned schools could accomplish instead of what they had failed to accomplish previously. Her goal was to create a community - not to improve test scores or production. She is an innovator who realizes the importance of and shows success by creating a community enviroment that capitalizes on respect for all individuals and a family approach to learning. I currently serve as a school counselor in a low-income elementary school in Smyrna, TN. In my five years in this position, I have found that when parents are involved and children are taught how to make wise choices and think for themselves, the results are very positive. I am fortunate that my administrator is an "innovator" who realizes that before children can be taught academics, their basic needs must be addressed. Following this train of thought and practice, we have seen a continuous increase in yearly achievement test scores. Innovators like my administrator and Deborah Meier realize that in order to reform public education, we must address the needs of individual students on a very basic level before we can teach them academic skills which will in turn increase test scores and productivity.
As far as a "maker" that has influenced public education as we know it today, I would say that, based on the mention of them in Gatto's article, businessmen such as Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carenegie have all influenced public education equally. As business and industry grew and changed over the years, business leaders certainly saw young people coming into the workforce lacking the qualities they desired. As Gatto stated it, school became "a servant of corporate and political management". While I do detect a hint of sarcasm in Gatto's writing, I do believe that the "makers" have definitely had an influence on accountability, standardized testing, and uniform teaching in public education.
As I have reflected on Gatto's article, I have tried to think of what positive influence "makers" may have had on school reform. While I think Gatto was a bit extreme in his description of public schools being "training in boredom and bewilderment" and "antechambers to hell", I do believe that accountability is one of the ways to identify what is not working in public education in order to make changes toward improvement. Additionally, standardized testing appears to have the intention of finding out what skills children have and have not mastered in a very objective, rather than subjective, manner. Although I have never worked in a business or factory setting, it appears that many bosses and supervisors are more interested in the product, the bottom line and the job being accomplished than they are in the personal qualities of an individual. Therefore, standardized testing may be good practice for task-oriented individuals in the job force.
Overall, I see myself as an innovator. While I do believe that educators should always be looking for ways and means to improve on ourselves and our public education offering as a whole and that accountability in education is important, I also believe we must look at ways to improve all students for the good of society rather than just for the benefit of the workforce. I believe that education is largely about the process rather than only the finished product. Students must learn from and value where they have been in order to successfully reach their final destination in life.
Joe Clark - biography. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.joeclarkspeaker.com/biography.htm
Van Wagner, K. (n.d.). About.com:Psychology. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm
In the PBS web article entitled "School: The Story of Public Education", innovators are described as "visionary individuals" who have been leaders in school reform and transformation. Meanwhile, John Taylor Gatto, on his website for the Odyessus Group, states his belief that businessmen such as Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller have actually been the makers of public schools.
While it seems to me that the focus of both "innovators" and "makers" is to produce contributing members of society, it would appear that "innovators" are interested in the process of how this is accomplished and the "makers" are more interested in the end result. It seems to me that the "innovators" goal is to "form" a child into a well-rounded person with qualities to help him or her to be successful in adulthood, while "makers" seem to have a goal of "conforming" a child to what would be seen as the "ideal" in the work force.
As a trained teacher as well as a certified school counselor, I tend to lean toward the viewpoint of the "innovators". I believe that if we educate and nurture the whole child, the end result will be a productive person in the workforce as well as a well-rounded individual who makes contributions to improve our society. Because we live in an ever-changing society, I tend to think that "conforming" children to a particular ideal is not sufficient preparation for the future. Rather, if we "form" children to be critical thinkers who, in the words of Booker T. Washington, value "hard work, persistence and self-discipline", then they will grow to be adults who are equipped to be successful regardless of the changes in the world of work. For instance, whether a worker is flipping hamburgers, working on an assembly line, teaching in a public or private school, or defending criminals, the dedication to and the pride in one's work should be the same.
One innovator who I feel has influenced, and continues to, truly influence public education as we know it today is Deborah Meier. Meier worked for many years to "fix" public education in the lower income areas of New York City. Much like Joe Clark whose story is told in the movie "Lean on Me", Meier was focused more on what the students in her assigned schools could accomplish instead of what they had failed to accomplish previously. Her goal was to create a community - not to improve test scores or production. She is an innovator who realizes the importance of and shows success by creating a community enviroment that capitalizes on respect for all individuals and a family approach to learning. I currently serve as a school counselor in a low-income elementary school in Smyrna, TN. In my five years in this position, I have found that when parents are involved and children are taught how to make wise choices and think for themselves, the results are very positive. I am fortunate that my administrator is an "innovator" who realizes that before children can be taught academics, their basic needs must be addressed. Following this train of thought and practice, we have seen a continuous increase in yearly achievement test scores. Innovators like my administrator and Deborah Meier realize that in order to reform public education, we must address the needs of individual students on a very basic level before we can teach them academic skills which will in turn increase test scores and productivity.
As far as a "maker" that has influenced public education as we know it today, I would say that, based on the mention of them in Gatto's article, businessmen such as Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carenegie have all influenced public education equally. As business and industry grew and changed over the years, business leaders certainly saw young people coming into the workforce lacking the qualities they desired. As Gatto stated it, school became "a servant of corporate and political management". While I do detect a hint of sarcasm in Gatto's writing, I do believe that the "makers" have definitely had an influence on accountability, standardized testing, and uniform teaching in public education.
As I have reflected on Gatto's article, I have tried to think of what positive influence "makers" may have had on school reform. While I think Gatto was a bit extreme in his description of public schools being "training in boredom and bewilderment" and "antechambers to hell", I do believe that accountability is one of the ways to identify what is not working in public education in order to make changes toward improvement. Additionally, standardized testing appears to have the intention of finding out what skills children have and have not mastered in a very objective, rather than subjective, manner. Although I have never worked in a business or factory setting, it appears that many bosses and supervisors are more interested in the product, the bottom line and the job being accomplished than they are in the personal qualities of an individual. Therefore, standardized testing may be good practice for task-oriented individuals in the job force.
Overall, I see myself as an innovator. While I do believe that educators should always be looking for ways and means to improve on ourselves and our public education offering as a whole and that accountability in education is important, I also believe we must look at ways to improve all students for the good of society rather than just for the benefit of the workforce. I believe that education is largely about the process rather than only the finished product. Students must learn from and value where they have been in order to successfully reach their final destination in life.
Joe Clark - biography. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.joeclarkspeaker.com/biography.htm
Van Wagner, K. (n.d.). About.com:Psychology. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds.htm
Monday, August 31, 2009
My name is Marsha and I am enrolled in the EdS. program at MT with an emphasis in administration and supervision. I have not been in school in 15 years...and my how things have changed! I am a school counselor at a K- 5 elementary school in Smyrna, TN and I work with the Kindergarten through 2nd graders. I have 15 years of experience in the field of education, including one year teaching 6th grade language arts, 4 and 1/2 years teaching 2nd grade, and the rest of my time as an elementary school counselor.
Blogging is all new to me, but if it is anything like other social networking sites, I am sure it can be addictive!
Blogging is all new to me, but if it is anything like other social networking sites, I am sure it can be addictive!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
