The logical part of my brain understands the points and concepts made by Schmoker in this excerpt from Results Now. But the emotional side of me just can't buy into these ideas and concepts. The words that jumped out at me from this reading included "mediocre", "inferior" and "heartbreakingly rare". These adjectives don't do justice to the educators, students, or parents in my school situation. And I choose to believe that they don't describe the majority of schools in this country. (I could go on and on about this, but I'm going to stop here and try not to be upset.)
With the above stated, I did agree with many of the suggestions made by Schmoker for improving the quality of education and instruction in our schools. Collaboration among teachers and administrators does lead to increased creativity, support, and quality of instruction. Allowing for common planning time is one way to easily allow for this necessary group time that can greatly impact teaching and learning. Additionally, I agreed with Schmoker's suggestions for narrowing the curriculum to focus on math, writing, and reading. By allowing for quality instruction in basic subjects, students should develop stronger skills. Lastly, I thought that Schmoker's points about ensuring that all teachers are following the same curriculum were very important. Teaching the same skills with similar materials is one very important way to ensure that all students receive a comprehensive and equal education.
Socio-economic status and family involvement were two key issues that I felt were not addressed sufficiently in this excerpt (although maybe they are touched upon in other chapters of the book). These two issues greatly effect a child's development, motivation, and ability to do well in an academic environment. Too often school and learning is viewed as a singular and separate component. But poverty and home environment also greatly impact school and learning. Some of the foreign countries (Japan, Norway, Sweden) that consistently outperform the US seem to understand this better than we do.
Public schooling in this country is a huge endeavor. Every child from the age of six through high school is given the opportunity to receive an education. I think this is an amazing feat and I greatly respect the educators that dedicate their lives to helping students achieve this goal. So many of them accomplish it with limited funds, materials, and support. While I do agree that some teachers are not effective, I do believe that the majority work hard and help children to do great things.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
Round in a Flat World
This assignment was REALLY hard and challenging for me. I don't use new technology a lot and I didn't have a lot of the needed programs/expertise to quickly and easily do this assignment. I think it's interesting that most middle and high school students could probably pop something like this out in 30 minutes, but it took me MUCH longer. I think that part of being a teacher in the flat world is realizing that students may know more that us in certain situations. Peer teaching and group work is probably going to become even more important as technology continues to rapidly change. Anyway, my slideshow is simple but I'm very proud of it because I figured it all out by myself. Despite my technological limitations, it appears that there's hope for me in the flat world after all.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Did you know?
One of the people that had a great impact on my development as a learner and a thinker was my grandfather. When I was growing up, he was constantly challenging all of his grandkids to be thinkers and one of his favorite ways to encourage us was through quotations. One of his favorite sayings was "Paper takes anything you print". The point of the quote is pretty simple and self explanatory - just because something is written down does not mean it is fact. The first thought that popped into my head at the conclusion of the "Did You Know?" slideshow was a twist to my pop's saying - "The internet takes anything you type." One of the most important and essential things that we can teach our children is to critically think about the information available on the internet. One must consider the source and credibility of info, the purpose behind the info, and the use of the info. The video on U-Tube was created by a for profit internet company and no sources were cited. Therefore, I do think it is quite a leap to just blindly assume that all the reported facts and statistics in the video are completely true and reported without bias. I think we as educators need to always have this in mind as we present lessons about the internet to our students. Like Friedman said, we need to teach them "to learn how to learn" and a big part of that puzzle is being informed and critical users of technology.
With the above said, I'm willing to make the jump and assume that the big picture of the "Did You Know?" video is true for the sake of this assignment. (Although I do have doubts about some of the facts - I'm just not up to checking them.) Friedman, Pink, and the creators of "Did You Know?" present information that points to a radically changing job force over the next few decades. They also suggest that American students need to develop a completely new skill set in order to find future success. The scariest thought is that these authors and researchers demonstrate that the current American school system is not providing the necessary skills to our students, nor is the system attempting to make the needed changes.
A lot of the information provided by Friedman and Pink rang true for me. In my school situation, we spend a lot of time with the students on basic skills and testing. Yet, our children are going to need technology, media, and information literacy skills in the future. My district just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to update the reading textbook series, yet the district is also considering eliminating the computer labs and technology teachers at the elementary level next school year. Budget cuts and testing requirements seem to change the nature of our job every year in negative ways. One example from my own classroom is that two years ago I did a really cool collaborative project with my Kindergarten students and their 6th grade buddies. Each Kindergartner created his/her own series of questions about an animal of interest, researched the questions in the library and computer lab with the help of their buddy, and then created a poster project that reported their findings and shared it with the entire class. Looking back on it, we were learning how to learn and this project could easily be tweaked to add a multimedia component to the project part. But, last year I cut this activity because it didn't connect directly to the curriculum and I was getting a lot of pressure to make sure my kids could add and subtract by the end of Kindergarten (not a required skill, but it is now standardize tested in grade 1). Lately, the American educational community (myself included) seems to be taking steps backwards out of fear, rather than bravely moving forward.
For me, one of the solutions to the issues stated by Pink, Friedman, and "Did You Know?" is for educators to keep on top of new developments in the field. I think that the best ways for teachers to do this is to read as much research as possible, take courses at legitimate teaching colleges and universities, and communicate with colleagues. These experiences allow us to grow and that process has a positive impact on what and how we teach our students. Administrators also need to make certain that this is a priority for them, as well as for the teachers that they supervise.
On a final note, I recognized the music that went with the "Did You Know?" video as coming from the Last of the Mohican's (a movie from about 10 years ago?) soundtrack. It's a nice instrumental CD and I play it in my classroom quite often. Anyway, the music got me thinking about the classic print version of Last of the Mohican's (written James Fenimore Cooper - I think he was a NJ native) versus the more contemporary and technology impressive movie version starring Daniel Day Lewis. For me, the book version is beautifully written and still engaging after all these years, while the movie version stinks. Did you know that sometimes new technology is not able to improve upon simple, classic perfection?
With the above said, I'm willing to make the jump and assume that the big picture of the "Did You Know?" video is true for the sake of this assignment. (Although I do have doubts about some of the facts - I'm just not up to checking them.) Friedman, Pink, and the creators of "Did You Know?" present information that points to a radically changing job force over the next few decades. They also suggest that American students need to develop a completely new skill set in order to find future success. The scariest thought is that these authors and researchers demonstrate that the current American school system is not providing the necessary skills to our students, nor is the system attempting to make the needed changes.
A lot of the information provided by Friedman and Pink rang true for me. In my school situation, we spend a lot of time with the students on basic skills and testing. Yet, our children are going to need technology, media, and information literacy skills in the future. My district just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to update the reading textbook series, yet the district is also considering eliminating the computer labs and technology teachers at the elementary level next school year. Budget cuts and testing requirements seem to change the nature of our job every year in negative ways. One example from my own classroom is that two years ago I did a really cool collaborative project with my Kindergarten students and their 6th grade buddies. Each Kindergartner created his/her own series of questions about an animal of interest, researched the questions in the library and computer lab with the help of their buddy, and then created a poster project that reported their findings and shared it with the entire class. Looking back on it, we were learning how to learn and this project could easily be tweaked to add a multimedia component to the project part. But, last year I cut this activity because it didn't connect directly to the curriculum and I was getting a lot of pressure to make sure my kids could add and subtract by the end of Kindergarten (not a required skill, but it is now standardize tested in grade 1). Lately, the American educational community (myself included) seems to be taking steps backwards out of fear, rather than bravely moving forward.
For me, one of the solutions to the issues stated by Pink, Friedman, and "Did You Know?" is for educators to keep on top of new developments in the field. I think that the best ways for teachers to do this is to read as much research as possible, take courses at legitimate teaching colleges and universities, and communicate with colleagues. These experiences allow us to grow and that process has a positive impact on what and how we teach our students. Administrators also need to make certain that this is a priority for them, as well as for the teachers that they supervise.
On a final note, I recognized the music that went with the "Did You Know?" video as coming from the Last of the Mohican's (a movie from about 10 years ago?) soundtrack. It's a nice instrumental CD and I play it in my classroom quite often. Anyway, the music got me thinking about the classic print version of Last of the Mohican's (written James Fenimore Cooper - I think he was a NJ native) versus the more contemporary and technology impressive movie version starring Daniel Day Lewis. For me, the book version is beautifully written and still engaging after all these years, while the movie version stinks. Did you know that sometimes new technology is not able to improve upon simple, classic perfection?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
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.
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
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
Monday, September 24, 2007
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.)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)