Wednesday, September 2, 2009
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:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
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 have to respond anonymously until I am registered in with my google account. Just wanted to make sure you knew that was my response :)
-Justine LaMantia
Here is my discussion about the readings:
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
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 excell. 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 acheive 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.
Post a Comment