Reading Don't Fix No Chevys

After reading the excerpt from this article, I started to think about the purpose of our school curriculum. Is curriculum created to allow students to fully develop their innate skills and talents (ex. the things that give them flow) or is it created to expose students to a wide variety of topics, skills, and possibilities? I think that they way in which our nation currently creates curriculum focuses on the idea that students in the early grades should be exposed to a variety of areas and skills in order to allow children to develop competence. The current practice also seems to support the notion that curriculum should get more specific to the needs and interests of the student, as he/she gets older. While this makes sense in many ways, the examples provided in this article highlight the fact that children are often turned off by things that are uninteresting to them and/or areas that are difficult for them. By placing such an emphasis upon competence in the basic subjects in the early grades, the educational system probably does turn off many young students, especially boys. I have personally seen this happen in the area of reading to several young male students. Developmentally, many boys are not ready to master required reading skills at the time that they are first presented. Perhaps this lack of competence creates an environment where these students stop trying and fall even farther behind. Interestingly, these same students might be more willing to develop their reading skills, if this area of learning was aligned to an area of high interest.
On a slightly different note, (sorry for getting off topic!) the different learning styles of male and female students is an area that I struggle with for a variety of reasons. In this age of political correctness, parents and educators sometimes get offended by the suggestion that boys and girls require different treatment in order to learn. But, I do believe that this is sometimes true. Some examples that I have found include: maturity level (I do believe that boys and girls are ready to begin school at different ages), areas of interest (different topics create different interest and excitement levels in the different sexes), and teacher interaction (boys and girls communicate with teachers in different ways and seek different types of praise and interaction). I know that this is a generalization and may not always be true. But, I think that our current curriculum and educational system treats the needs of boys and girls to be the same. We gladly change programs and teaching styles for students that are identified with special needs (ex. learning issues, ESL students, etc). So, why are we so unwilling to consider that boys and girls might need these same accommodations? Perhaps, allowing for the differences in the sexes within our curriculum would allow for more students to find their flow during the course of the school day.

Dear Congressman Ferguson

September 2007

Dear Congressman Ferguson,

As an elementary school teacher and a resident of New Jersey, I have great interest in the current congressional debate over the reauthorization of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. I think several positive outcomes have resulted from the current NCLB legislation, including increased numbers of highly qualified teachers teaching in our nation's classrooms, as well as increased availability of information for parents and family members. But, I do have some concerns about the NCLB legislation. I wanted to share with you some of my thoughts on the current policies, as well as several of the President's suggestions for changes to the proposed reauthorization of NCLB.

First, the current bill calls for annual assessments in order to monitor student progress. Due to this requirement, New Jersey students are now required to complete at least one full week of standardized testing every year in the elementary grades 3-6. As an early childhood educator, I find these annual standardized assessments to be very developmentally inappropriate. Research has shown that rubrics, project based assessments, and ongoing anecdotal observations are better methods to monitor the progress of young students. This is due to the developmental levels of these students, which is impacted by issues such as age, attention span, and ability to perform on paper and pencil tasks. It is hard for our young students to be enthusiastic and interested in school when they are required to devote so much of their academic time to preparing for and taking a developmentally inappropriate standardized test every year. I strongly urge you to consider changing this requirement to allow for non annual assessments that are not standardized in order to meet the developmental needs of our younger students.

These required annual assessments were created for the purpose of demonstrating that all students can read and do math at grade level by the year 2014. This goal was set in the current NCLB Act in order to increase accountability. As an educated person, I realize that this is statistically impossible. Additionally, this requirement doesn't take into account the differentiated needs of special education students and English Language Learners, as well as students that just have a bad day on the day of the test. This section of the NCLB legislation needs to be examined and reworked in order to represent a goal that is attainable, rather than a goal that sounds good.

The newly proposed reauthorization of NCLB also calls for the allotment of many additional resources, including tools to close the achievement gap in math and science, resources to prepare high school students for higher education in schools serving low income families, and tools for under performing schools. I think that all of these programs would have positive benefits to students and teachers. But, I certainly hope that Congress reviews these recommendations to ensure that FEDERAL (not state or local) funds can provide for these services. A new program is only as good as the money that is invested into it. If the federal government cannot pay for the services that it mandates, it isn't really fair to require states and local towns to fund these programs.

Additionally, the newly proposed reauthorization of NCLB recommends many funds and scholarships that allow for students to attend private, charter, and religious schools. As a taxpayer, I am strongly opposed to tax monies being used to fund these types of programs. Private, charter, and religious schools do not have the same accountability as public schools. They can refuse students, teach religious ideas, and opt out of mandated accountability programs. Therefore, private funds (not public tax monies) should be used by the students that choose to attend these programs.

There are some positive aspects to the NCLB Act. But many of the current policies, as well as the policies proposed in the reauthorization, need to be examined and altered. I urge you to consider my suggestions, as well as those of other educators when you place your vote.

Thank you.
Ellen Johnson

180 Days

I agree with a lot of the points made by Professor Bachenheimer on his Utube video about 180 days of high school. A lot of time is wasted during the course of the school year for non educational and/or instructional activities. Of course the point can also be made that there are other purposes to school, like fostering development in the areas of socialization and communication. Things like pep rallies, guidance planning, and parties allow students to further develop these skills. Additionally, movies, assemblies, and review sessions can be academic in nature and often help to engage different types of learners in the material being presented. The ultimate message to teachers is to be aware of the precious time that we have with our students and to use this time to the fullest possibility.

I'm sure that studies have been done about how we compare to other countries in this area. I'm not aware of the findings, but I would guess that many other nations (with high academic ratings) do not spend as much time occupied with non academic events during the school day as compared to us in the USA. It seems to me that our American society expects the schools to be responsible for things that might fall to families and parents in other nations. Examples include hosting birthday celebrations, providing review and study periods, taking individual photos, providing counseling, and having assembly programs to expose students to culture and art. All of these things are important in the development of a child. But when the school provides these lessons, some academic time suffers. Schools and teachers might have more time for teaching, if families did some of these non academic activities at home.

One final idea that I kept thinking about during this video is the fact that self contained teachers in elementary schools have more time for instruction because they have their students all day. So, even if there is an assembly, party, or fire drill, the most important information can still be taught and learned during the day. It might help to combat this problem, if subjects were taught for an entire half of the day at the middle and high school level. Students could still complete the same number of courses over the course of a year - they would just finish them more quickly and move on to the next one. By having a longer period of time, teachers would be able to prioritize the information and make sure students still learn essential things on days when the schedule has interruptions. (I think I may have inadvertently just agreed with one of Marc Prensky's points. It may be possible to teach the curriculum in less than an entire school year, if we are willing to change some of the ways in which we schedule the day.)

Saber Tooth Curriculum

This clever article provides a metaphor for viewing the development of the educational system, as well for considering educational reform. At the beginning of the article, the children spent their time playing and having fun. A wise member of the community realized that the entire population would benefit if the children were taught the essential skills that they needed for survival as adults. So, the Saber Tooth Curriculum was created. At the time, it was challenged by the more religious members of the community, but it was eventually successfully adopted. As time passed, the needs of the community changed and some began to advocate for adding items to the curriculum or removing outdated items. The article ended with this society being left to consider the things that are really essential to a comprehensive curriculum.



The part in the article that I identified most with was the statement made by an older member of this society near the conclusion of the article. This man supported the Saber Tooth Curriculum because he felt that some things in education should stand the test of time and remain timeless. The statement seems absurd (which I think was the author's point) because of the uselessness of the Saber Tooth Curriculum to the current society. It got me thinking because I tend to REALLY like routine and tradition, which I think can be both beneficial and detrimental to my students. One of the areas that I am strongest at in my classroom is reading instruction. I think much of this strength stems from the important value that I place upon reading as a subject, art, and life skill. But, I will admit (and I work on this) that I can sometimes focus too much on reading in the course of a day and not enough on other areas (like Science and Social Studies). I know that I am sometimes hesitant about teaching new things or subjects because they don't fit with my thoughts on what constitutes a "good education". But this article really points out that education should fit with the needs of the time and serve a purpose. Ultimately, these curricular decisions should be made by our society to fit our needs, rather than by individual teachers, school buildings, or districts.

NJ Department of Education Website and Curriculum

After surfing through the section of the NJ DOE's website that is devoted to the CCCS, I discovered that educators, parents, and community members can easily access basic information about the Core Curriculum in New Jersey. Included in this information is a brief history of educational reform in New Jersey and an introduction to the CCCS, as well as the actual CCCS. The site is organized in a simple format that makes it easy to use and understand. Users can also communicate with the DOE through the site.

Unfortunately, the actual information provided is so basic that I don't think it is of much value to any person that might access the site. Educators already have copies of this information and are required to use it. The site might be of more value to teachers if it included ideas for implementing the CCCS, as well as examples of best practice teaching methods. Parents and community members may get a little more out of the site due to the fact that they can access the CCCS. To make the page more even more pertinent to these users, it would helpful if the site linked to specific school districts, as well as if it included tips for ensuring that a school district is meeting the challenges of the CCCS.

One of the most important aspects to note, is the fact that many educators, parents, and community members do not have daily access to the internet. So, this information is much harder for them to access and use. Because of this fact, it is very important for school districts to have hard copies of this info, as well as to provide parents and community members with opportunities to use the school's computer facilities. Additionally, partnerships between school districts and public libraries can help to get this info into the hands of people that may not be able to access it in their own homes.

This is a very basic website that can be used for simple informational needs by users that have internet access. I would recommend that the NJ DOE consider ways to add substance to the page by including best practice teaching methods and tips for getting parents and community members involved with curriculum. I would also suggest that the NJ DOE utilize other community resources in order to provide parents and community members ways in which to access this information, if they don't have internet access.

American Schools: Slow to Change

In their article "Institutionalization and Renewal in a Restructured Secondary School", Anderson and Stiegelbauer propose that many educational reforms and innovations fall to the wayside because they never become part of a teacher's regular classroom routine and/or typical teaching methods (Anderson & Stiegelbauer, 1994). I think that this idea also has merit when considering the slow rate of change in the American educational system.
A new idea, method, or policy will never really produce great changes unless it is utilized on a regular basis. With this in mind, teachers are the people that have the power to decide which of the new ideas, methods, and policies they actually use in their rooms. Convincing educators to regularly use these innovations is one of the great challenges to creating positive changes in the educational system.
On the bright side, I do believe that most teachers are open to new ideas and change. Unfortunately, there always seems to be a new reform, program, or theory about learning that educators are being urged to adopt. It's difficult (and often frustrating) to constantly be required to change what you are doing, especially if your methods are producing positive results. I think that a lot of teachers resist changes because they are so used to new ones popping up a short time later. So instead, a lot of teachers rely on what is comfortable and successful for them and their students. Because they never regularly use a new idea or program, it doesn't get adopted into their teaching style or room and that change never really catches on.
It's interesting to think about the factors that impact change in our educational system. More interesting to me are the ways to actually effect broad and lasting changes in the system. But when I try to think of some solutions, I really can't come up with much. It's a complicated issue that is really hard to solve.
Anderson, S. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1994). Institutionalization and renewal in a restructured secondary school. School Organization, 14(3), 279-293.

Mark Prensky Challenge

In his challenge, Marc Prensky theorizes that today's students will be motivated to learn an entire year's worth of information in half that time in order to receive the opportunity to learn about technology like ipods, robots, and Nintendo DS's in a hands on manner. He also suggests that students would be willing and able to collaboratively help each other learn the information needed to pass the yearly tests if such a prize were offered.

After reading the Marc Prensky Challenge, I felt fairly certain that Mr. Prensky was not an educator. I searched through his website and could find no evidence that he had any training in child development, educational theories or practices, and/or teaching methods. This did not surprise me because the ideas in his challenge don't take into account the many different learning styles that students bring to a classroom, as well as the learning difficulties that many students must overcome. While some students might be motivated by technology, others are motivated by the arts, music, physical activity, and nature (to name a few). Good teachers use all of these factors in their classroom in order to engage and motivate an entire class. Additionally, good teachers are knowledgeable about special education policies, strategies, and modifications. If peer tutoring were simply the answer to all the needs of our special education students wouldn't educators already be doing that??!!!

I found Marc Prensky's challenge to be a condescending and smug answer to the complex challenges faced by today's students and educators. A better challenge would be for Mr. Prensky to spend a semester in a classroom to gain a better understand about the ways in which students learn and teachers teach.