Shannon said...
As for teaching teachers about technology, it sounds like that is secondary to convincing or forcing teachers to open their minds to new ways of doing things that create a more modern or beneficial environment for the students.
I agree. I would start with a convention or meeting to discuss ideas among experts like consultants and respected teachers (idealy from within their own school) that have had visible and repeatable success in a specific area of teaching. During the convention they would be able to brainstorm and create realistic plans for possible improvements to their specific school as well as the government school system as a whole. The next step would be involving the teachers, administrators and government regulators, to support and implement a selection of these suggested changes in a way that is not too disruptive to the system. Hopefully this would happen with the majority of the input from teachers and the least possible disruption by the government. I read an article in our free-reading that said that this sharing of information among teachers has been very effective on the ground in the classrooms.
I agree that electives can and should become a "safe space" where students can demonstrate and exercise their apptitudes for subjects other than the basics. This will help keep students engaged who have difficulty relating to the typical curriculum.
more...
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Justine said...
A lot of what you discuss in your response of students being denied the education they deserve reminds me of Ch. 5 in Deciding to Lead that explains how teachers too often fall into a comfort zone of teaching their materials.
Many teachers feel that "new" literacies and methodologies are not "fit" for their students and they grow comfortable with the routine of teaching the materials/handouts/lessons they have already established. In the Capital Area Writing Project this summer many teachers explained how incorporating technology was not an immediate issue they attacked in their classrooms because they were intimidated by the use of technology in content areas. Because many teachers are not familiar with the new technologies arising they are not using them in their classrooms. It is important for school districts to provide adequate professional development for their faculty in order to gain the knowledge needed to improve their teaching and keeping it "up-to-date."
Chapter 5 of Deciding To Lead brought up the idea that those who are most familiar with problems and solutions should be agents of reform in certain areas. The perception of these individuals is important and will help guide/lead EFFECTIVE change. I have seen many attempts at fixing a problem that just looks good on paper. In trying to raise test scores (a main concern of my school… sometimes I feel the ONLY concern of my school) my school creates these plans that deny other teachers their teaching time. These decisions at my school are usually made only by administration and an Academic Coach. This decision-making process makes me feel as if I am an OBJECT rather than a SUBJECT. I would like to move more into the role of SUBJECT.
Elective classes are not taken as seriously as they should be at my school. I feel that a lot of Elective class time is cut. Last week’s reading examined what a “safe space” environment should look like in a classroom. Part of a student feeling successful during a school day is that they have outlets where they CAN feel successful and for a lot of my students Core classes are not necessarily a haven they feel successful in. These students’ electives are getting cut and therefore they are not able to pursue their “passions” and hobbies during the school day which may lead to them “checking-out” earlier. Creating a safe-space environment goes beyond the classroom and needs to consume the school.
September 24, 2009 12:16 PM
A lot of what you discuss in your response of students being denied the education they deserve reminds me of Ch. 5 in Deciding to Lead that explains how teachers too often fall into a comfort zone of teaching their materials.
Many teachers feel that "new" literacies and methodologies are not "fit" for their students and they grow comfortable with the routine of teaching the materials/handouts/lessons they have already established. In the Capital Area Writing Project this summer many teachers explained how incorporating technology was not an immediate issue they attacked in their classrooms because they were intimidated by the use of technology in content areas. Because many teachers are not familiar with the new technologies arising they are not using them in their classrooms. It is important for school districts to provide adequate professional development for their faculty in order to gain the knowledge needed to improve their teaching and keeping it "up-to-date."
Chapter 5 of Deciding To Lead brought up the idea that those who are most familiar with problems and solutions should be agents of reform in certain areas. The perception of these individuals is important and will help guide/lead EFFECTIVE change. I have seen many attempts at fixing a problem that just looks good on paper. In trying to raise test scores (a main concern of my school… sometimes I feel the ONLY concern of my school) my school creates these plans that deny other teachers their teaching time. These decisions at my school are usually made only by administration and an Academic Coach. This decision-making process makes me feel as if I am an OBJECT rather than a SUBJECT. I would like to move more into the role of SUBJECT.
Elective classes are not taken as seriously as they should be at my school. I feel that a lot of Elective class time is cut. Last week’s reading examined what a “safe space” environment should look like in a classroom. Part of a student feeling successful during a school day is that they have outlets where they CAN feel successful and for a lot of my students Core classes are not necessarily a haven they feel successful in. These students’ electives are getting cut and therefore they are not able to pursue their “passions” and hobbies during the school day which may lead to them “checking-out” earlier. Creating a safe-space environment goes beyond the classroom and needs to consume the school.
September 24, 2009 12:16 PM
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Response to Justine's Previous Post
Shannon said...
I agree! We need to keep all opportunities available for children with diverse life-paths ahead! Who knows, that kid that took the path of computer technician instead of college may be the next Bill Gates!
I agree! We need to keep all opportunities available for children with diverse life-paths ahead! Who knows, that kid that took the path of computer technician instead of college may be the next Bill Gates!
Journal Article
What I read in the journal Voices from the Middle was very heartening and disturbing at the same time. One article, "Good Talk about Good Teaching", noted that the most valuble and practical data came from teachers sharing among themselves rather than from the many academic projects. Too often university researchers "lamented the state of teaching" while "seldom mentioning their own" [teaching experience]. Is this "mismatch between research and practice" the reason that in the many decades of American teaching we continue to see the same problems over and over?
One can say that academia should open up their collective minds and come down from the clouds to examine the environment and the children in the real world. I do believe that academia needs to follow both purely theoretical and data-based research and practical "on the ground" research to explore all the possibilities. Still, teachers do have the ability to read and follow or disregard studies and there is a wealth of information from sources both inside and outside academia. Teachers can choose how to teach.
That is, unless they are given orders by the government on how or what to teach. The heart of the issue is why American teachers continue to have children that are not receiving the education that they need and deserve rather than what they are entitled to receive. I believe that it is the government itself that needs to get out of the way of the teachers and the schools. Charter schools are one example of competition in the marketplace creating a better product. Imagine if more schools were freed from the restrictions of testing in order to keep funding and following other tedious fand wasteful laws. Imagine what a bright and eager teacher could do for all of our diverse children with the many resources that we have available today.
We as Americans lack the political will to tell our government that their government run schools just aren't cutting it. The teachers are there (well-trained and devoted teachers), the resources (both federal and state funding are set aside for schools) are their the knowledge of how to use the resources is there (we have decades of data and first-hand accounts) but, (and this is the crux of the problem) the welfare of the children and function of the schools are left up to bureaucracies and out-dated laws that no matter their intentions cannot be dynamic enough to support such a delicate and vital system.
When the power over schools is given back to the communities where the children live, then will we see what American children can truly do!
One can say that academia should open up their collective minds and come down from the clouds to examine the environment and the children in the real world. I do believe that academia needs to follow both purely theoretical and data-based research and practical "on the ground" research to explore all the possibilities. Still, teachers do have the ability to read and follow or disregard studies and there is a wealth of information from sources both inside and outside academia. Teachers can choose how to teach.
That is, unless they are given orders by the government on how or what to teach. The heart of the issue is why American teachers continue to have children that are not receiving the education that they need and deserve rather than what they are entitled to receive. I believe that it is the government itself that needs to get out of the way of the teachers and the schools. Charter schools are one example of competition in the marketplace creating a better product. Imagine if more schools were freed from the restrictions of testing in order to keep funding and following other tedious fand wasteful laws. Imagine what a bright and eager teacher could do for all of our diverse children with the many resources that we have available today.
We as Americans lack the political will to tell our government that their government run schools just aren't cutting it. The teachers are there (well-trained and devoted teachers), the resources (both federal and state funding are set aside for schools) are their the knowledge of how to use the resources is there (we have decades of data and first-hand accounts) but, (and this is the crux of the problem) the welfare of the children and function of the schools are left up to bureaucracies and out-dated laws that no matter their intentions cannot be dynamic enough to support such a delicate and vital system.
When the power over schools is given back to the communities where the children live, then will we see what American children can truly do!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Journal Article
Justine said...
Wolfe and Antinarella challenge us to think about our school experiences growing up and compare them to that of an educational system being called "mediocre." Chapter two uses the metaphor of "moving deck chairs around on the Titanic" to ex plain constant hasty educational reforms. This metaphor made me think about a high school in Durham that has completely changed to a "college-track" only.
Although I agree with your post on holding the same expectations for students, I only agree with holding HIGH expectations. I cannot hold the exact same expectations for my EC/Gen Ed. class as I would my Honors/Advanced class. My expecations for all students in these classes are high, however not the same. My expectations of my students revolve around their personal goals and individual growth.
The fact that this high school in Durham has changed their school to a college track only for our students disturbs me. Yes, all students need to be held to high standards, but the reality rests that not ALL of our students will go to college. Students need to be exposed to a trade if that is their desire in today's society. If a high school fails to provide that for students not all students are receiving equal opportunities in my opinion. I am not refering to a trade as students having "lower expectations for themselves" as this chapter suggests. I am championing for a realistic look at our society and having programs/curriculum that fit our current societal/technological needs.
Reflecting on the past in order to help shape our future in education was the topic for the Voices in the Middle journal. This topic ties in well with the information in our readings as it proposes a direction in which to proceed when thinking about educational reform. All good reform should as the question "WHY change this?" and fuse our past experiences (both positive and negative) as a catalyst.
-Justine LaMantia
Wolfe and Antinarella challenge us to think about our school experiences growing up and compare them to that of an educational system being called "mediocre." Chapter two uses the metaphor of "moving deck chairs around on the Titanic" to ex plain constant hasty educational reforms. This metaphor made me think about a high school in Durham that has completely changed to a "college-track" only.
Although I agree with your post on holding the same expectations for students, I only agree with holding HIGH expectations. I cannot hold the exact same expectations for my EC/Gen Ed. class as I would my Honors/Advanced class. My expecations for all students in these classes are high, however not the same. My expectations of my students revolve around their personal goals and individual growth.
The fact that this high school in Durham has changed their school to a college track only for our students disturbs me. Yes, all students need to be held to high standards, but the reality rests that not ALL of our students will go to college. Students need to be exposed to a trade if that is their desire in today's society. If a high school fails to provide that for students not all students are receiving equal opportunities in my opinion. I am not refering to a trade as students having "lower expectations for themselves" as this chapter suggests. I am championing for a realistic look at our society and having programs/curriculum that fit our current societal/technological needs.
Reflecting on the past in order to help shape our future in education was the topic for the Voices in the Middle journal. This topic ties in well with the information in our readings as it proposes a direction in which to proceed when thinking about educational reform. All good reform should as the question "WHY change this?" and fuse our past experiences (both positive and negative) as a catalyst.
-Justine LaMantia
Monday, September 7, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Response
Shannon said...
Also, I would like to say that often when given a chance the "remedial" students will catch up with the "gifted" students. Very few students have learning disabilities that cannot be overcome IF the child is told they can overcome them and given the resources to do so.
If we want to have "No Child Left Behind" the we should be treating all children as if they have greater than average potential not less than average potential.
This will do 2 things: 1) it will challenge the kids to catch up or at least be better than they are now and 2) it will give them more self esteem because they will say "I am just as good as the gifted kids". The hope is that eventually with individual support from peers, teachers and outside resources that the remedial kids will no longer be behind and they will have been brought forward instead of everyone else being held back because the government says they cant do the same work as "gifted" or "average" kids.
The tricky part, in my humble opinion, is getting the support that these students need to excel. But aren't we already using a lot of resources on their "remedial" materials and teaching? Why not just shift gears just a little to receive the huge benefit of helping to create a happier, better academically, socially, and personally adjusted student?
The "remedial" student who learns they are not worth less than an "average" or even a "gifted" student may surprise the government and the administration by becoming the model for other students who are struggling to be where the government tells them they should be. Wouldn't this achieve the "No Child Left Behind" with similar resources and a much happier child and much prouder teacher as a result?
And of course the whole community would benefit from a network of such children and their in-school and out-of-school resources. It would be like the "Boys and Girls Club" after school program but supported directly by government-sponsored schools and their resources.
Also, I would like to say that often when given a chance the "remedial" students will catch up with the "gifted" students. Very few students have learning disabilities that cannot be overcome IF the child is told they can overcome them and given the resources to do so.
If we want to have "No Child Left Behind" the we should be treating all children as if they have greater than average potential not less than average potential.
This will do 2 things: 1) it will challenge the kids to catch up or at least be better than they are now and 2) it will give them more self esteem because they will say "I am just as good as the gifted kids". The hope is that eventually with individual support from peers, teachers and outside resources that the remedial kids will no longer be behind and they will have been brought forward instead of everyone else being held back because the government says they cant do the same work as "gifted" or "average" kids.
The tricky part, in my humble opinion, is getting the support that these students need to excel. But aren't we already using a lot of resources on their "remedial" materials and teaching? Why not just shift gears just a little to receive the huge benefit of helping to create a happier, better academically, socially, and personally adjusted student?
The "remedial" student who learns they are not worth less than an "average" or even a "gifted" student may surprise the government and the administration by becoming the model for other students who are struggling to be where the government tells them they should be. Wouldn't this achieve the "No Child Left Behind" with similar resources and a much happier child and much prouder teacher as a result?
And of course the whole community would benefit from a network of such children and their in-school and out-of-school resources. It would be like the "Boys and Girls Club" after school program but supported directly by government-sponsored schools and their resources.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Here is my discussion about the readings
Justine said...
The James Squire article “The Ten Great Ideas in the Teaching of English During the Past Half Century” caused me to question the types of literature our students at my middle school in Durham are being exposed to. As a faculty we try hard at our school to hook our student population into reading by choosing texts that easily excite students because of the content. The Bluford Series books are a staple in every Githens Middle School classroom and I find that many of my students have read the same book multiple times. Although I feel the Bluford Series is a powerful tool for the non-readers, I cannot help but feel that we are expanding curriculum while sacrificing quality (which Squire warns against).
Blufords’ lexile levels run at around a fourth grade reading level yet I notice some of my eighth grade Honors students carrying them around. Much advanced “expanded” reading materials are not made readily available to certain groups of students at my school. I worry the focus rests too much on achieving yearly growth on standardized tests while ignoring other populations of students who do not fall into the 1-2 EOG score range. As Squire says, “only first rate literature is capable of eliciting real experience.” If we are only conscious of choosing texts that students may be able to connect with rather than fusing great writing that holds commonalities with teenage experience, then we are denying our students the ability to have a powerful literary experience with great writing. I don’t want my students reading ONLY Bluford books (which consists of simple sentences and shallow characterization) when there is other literature that is well written, challenging and offers students the opportunity to make text-self connections along the way.
My school offers little to no professional development for our AIG population; all of the sessions revolve around remediation. This article really forced me to question the student populations are NOT being considered… I think this may actually be a topic I am interested in pursuing in our class.
-Justine LaMantia
The James Squire article “The Ten Great Ideas in the Teaching of English During the Past Half Century” caused me to question the types of literature our students at my middle school in Durham are being exposed to. As a faculty we try hard at our school to hook our student population into reading by choosing texts that easily excite students because of the content. The Bluford Series books are a staple in every Githens Middle School classroom and I find that many of my students have read the same book multiple times. Although I feel the Bluford Series is a powerful tool for the non-readers, I cannot help but feel that we are expanding curriculum while sacrificing quality (which Squire warns against).
Blufords’ lexile levels run at around a fourth grade reading level yet I notice some of my eighth grade Honors students carrying them around. Much advanced “expanded” reading materials are not made readily available to certain groups of students at my school. I worry the focus rests too much on achieving yearly growth on standardized tests while ignoring other populations of students who do not fall into the 1-2 EOG score range. As Squire says, “only first rate literature is capable of eliciting real experience.” If we are only conscious of choosing texts that students may be able to connect with rather than fusing great writing that holds commonalities with teenage experience, then we are denying our students the ability to have a powerful literary experience with great writing. I don’t want my students reading ONLY Bluford books (which consists of simple sentences and shallow characterization) when there is other literature that is well written, challenging and offers students the opportunity to make text-self connections along the way.
My school offers little to no professional development for our AIG population; all of the sessions revolve around remediation. This article really forced me to question the student populations are NOT being considered… I think this may actually be a topic I am interested in pursuing in our class.
-Justine LaMantia
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Response
Justine said...
I completely agree with you Shannon. Diversity reveals itself in a classroom in so many ways whether it be comprehesion levels, lexile reading levels, languages spoken, disabilities, socioeconomic status, etc. Diversity in a classroom can be overwhelming and it is our responsibilities as educators to foster a safe space environment for our students academically, socially and personally.
For the 1st time in my classroom during the 1st week of school I explicitly taught about "differentiation" and we had open class discussion about the need for it. I am finding differentiating activities to flow better during the course of a lesson because my students have an understanding of the rational or goals behind it.
I completely agree with you Shannon. Diversity reveals itself in a classroom in so many ways whether it be comprehesion levels, lexile reading levels, languages spoken, disabilities, socioeconomic status, etc. Diversity in a classroom can be overwhelming and it is our responsibilities as educators to foster a safe space environment for our students academically, socially and personally.
For the 1st time in my classroom during the 1st week of school I explicitly taught about "differentiation" and we had open class discussion about the need for it. I am finding differentiating activities to flow better during the course of a lesson because my students have an understanding of the rational or goals behind it.
School in the Modern Era
Diversity is both a good and a bad thing for the modern school. Children are exposed to and learn about different cultures and different ways of thinking. This can expand their mind and perspective but it can also confuse them. I believe that children need a place, as do we all, that they can count on to be safe, predictable and comfortable. Sometimes these goals are incompatible. The key is to balance what is best for the individual and the group while at the same time being fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)