I say this because in reflecting on the addition of kindergarten to the school system, I think of what it was before compared to what it is now. Before, as we discussed in class, it was a preparation to enter the more formal school setting. A period to "tame the savages" by giving them the experience of having structure in their day. It had a somewhat social worker feel as the teachers visited the students' families at home, helped mothers learn the standards of the "American Way" in regard to cleanliness, raising children, being a good American in general, etc. As stated in Tinkering Toward Utopia, "Reformers expected the kindergarten to be a cure for urban social evils as well as a model of education for young children." (p.65) As the craze grew, and outside funding was accepted, the purpose of kindergarten shifted. Suddenly it gets to be a great deal like the grades above it. The kindergarten that I remember as being a day (actually I was the last of the half-dayers in Rock Hill) of kickball and butterflies has become a day of math and phonics. Apparently, children must have started having problems with the transition because the cycle of education, going back to Tyack and Cuban's talk of education moving through cycles, created a new grade. Pre-kindergarten and programs such as Head Start are commonplace today. In Rock Hill, there is a school, Central Child Development Center, created for children approximately four to five years of age who are "behind" by today's standards. Children have to be accepted to the school. Not only is their ability to recognize colors and say their ABC's a factor, but their socioeconomic standing is part of the process, because it is for under privileged children. Here we go taming the savages again! I's not that I am condemning such programs, but I wonder why we started demanding so much more from our kindergardeners. Our "child gardens" seem to get forced to bloom so much earlier than before. Has the privilege of childhood left us as more of these stepping stones are placed in our paths?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Kindergarten Woes
Tuesday's class left me with a great deal to ponder. I found it interesting that periods of education are created and perpetuated to act as stepping stones to the next level of education and life itself. I wonder where the stepping stones end? I'm thinking only with death. It seems that from birth to death educators, psychologists, and perhaps it is simply innate to our being, all life gets broken down into stages. I do not believe this is necessarily a bad thing, who does not look forward to the landmarks such as coming of age to drive, graduate high school, retirement, etc.
No Child Left Behind criticized
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18432881
This interview was held on National Public Radio on Wed 30 January 2008. Among the criticisms of NTLB shared in the program, an economist, Richard Rothstein criticizes NCLB's most important goal: getting every single student in America to perform at or above grade level by 2014. He is quoted, "The notion that schools alone can create equal achievement for children of different social backgrounds is not based on any research. It's not based on a true understanding of what the many factors that contribute to student achievement are: [It assumes] that health doesn't matter, housing doesn't matter, that dysfunctional communities don't matter," Rothstein says. "I don't think we can make social policy on the basis of a myth."
This is a powerful statement that gets right to the basis of the Conservative and Liberal political perspectives of the purposes of public school. The Conservative and Liberal perspectives take into consideration the many factors that contribute to student achievement, and try to provide programs at the school to make everyone more equal. Note that many schools offer free or reduced breakfast and lunch, access to a school nurse and guidance counsellors. These programs promote their view that equal educational opportunity is important for all.
Our recent reading of Tyack and Cuban suggest 3 measures of the success or failure of a school reform, so let's use these to rate NCLB.
On the matter of fidelity to original design: NCLB would rate a mixed bag. Some aspects seem to be working out well, as students are taking more standardized tests for tracking progress. Other aspects of the law are considered a resounding failure; the promised funding to accommodate the requirements of the law never materialized. On the matter of meeting preset outcomes: NCLB scores poorly. As reported in the NPR program, reading scores have remained flat during the program, and math scores were seeing larger increases before NCLB was enacted. On the matter of longevity, NCLB has been around for six years, but its future is in jeopardy. Using these measures, NCLB has not been as successful educational reform. As Congress seems determined to change the law, let's consider ways we can input teacher knowledge of student learning and achievement into the revised law.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
"Horace Mann's Balanced Vision for Public Education"
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/4/120338.shtml
Here in this article, Steve Farrell indicates importance of Horace Mann and his point of view concerning public education. Horace Mann concluded, "I have endeavored to show that with universal suffrage there must be universal elevation of character, intellectual and moral, or there will be universal mismanagement and calamity." This point is interesting plugged into today's society concerning education. The thought of universal suffrage to obtain character gain seems to have elevated in the sense that we have worked so hard for many educational advances and yet, I question the morals and the reasons behind our advances. Have we put to much emphasis on making a difference that we forgot our basis for which public education was derived? In this point, are we seeming to mismanage our public school systems as a whole? If not are we compatible with these ideas leading to proper universal management?
Here in this article, Steve Farrell indicates importance of Horace Mann and his point of view concerning public education. Horace Mann concluded, "I have endeavored to show that with universal suffrage there must be universal elevation of character, intellectual and moral, or there will be universal mismanagement and calamity." This point is interesting plugged into today's society concerning education. The thought of universal suffrage to obtain character gain seems to have elevated in the sense that we have worked so hard for many educational advances and yet, I question the morals and the reasons behind our advances. Have we put to much emphasis on making a difference that we forgot our basis for which public education was derived? In this point, are we seeming to mismanage our public school systems as a whole? If not are we compatible with these ideas leading to proper universal management?
Obama and No Child Left Behind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsVimwm6xQ4&NR=1
Above is a link in which Barack Obama describes the fundamental changes he would make to the No Child Left Behind act. His reform would take place on the grounds that inadequate assessment tools are being used to measure progress. He also states that teachers did not have enough ownership in making this reform which in turn, has created a lot of resentment for the bill. One can hear his liberal ideologies coming through as he discusses the unequal starting grounds of schools, the uneven movement towards educational goals, and his disapproval of the status quo. T&C would agree with the concept of using teachers to help write such bills, and also discuss the resentment which has occurred when they were not a part of the process. Reform, as discussed in Tinkering Towards Utopia, is often made without the allocation of additional resources to help meet the policy changes. Obama confirms this statement claiming that not enough resources have been given to reach the NCLB act goals. T&C also discuss how reform changes shape between the conceptual motives and practice outcomes. (Mississippi lowering its standards) I agree with Obama and feel that the NCLB act should be reformed at its most basic levels. Teachers must be involved in the writing of these acts, and resources should be provided to meet new standards.
Re-revised reading schedule & note taking
Who knew Schools and Society would be so hard to get a hold of?! If it were another text, I would be tempted to just forget it, but this book is key to what we're trying to accomplish in the course. Since 1/3rd of the class still doesn't have it, we will change things around again. After talking with a few of you (whomever I ran into this morning), I have decided to change the schedule to the following:
This long and ponderous explanation leads me to . . . each student is required to take notes for only one class, but can take notes for two classes if they wish. If anyone has any questions, post them here or email me privately.
January 15th Intro/Live text & blog training
Jan 22nd Tinkering Toward Utopia Prologue, 1, & 2
Jan 29th Tinkering Toward Utopia 3, 4, 5, and epilogue
February 5th Closing of the American Mind Pp. 19-81
February 12th Closing of the American Mind, Pp. 336-382
February 19th School and Society Chapters 1-3
February 26th School and Society Chapters 4 & 5
March 4th School and Society Chapters 6 & 7
March 11th Experience and Education Chapters 1-4
March 18th Spring Break
March 25th TBA
April 1st Experience and Education Chapters 5-8
April 8th The Ethics of Teaching Chapters 1-3
April 15th The Ethics of Teaching Chapters 4-5
April 22nd The Ethics of Teaching Chapters 6 & 7
May 3rd Final Exam Time 3:00
In regards to our note taking/math discussion last night, Rebecca was right. There are 13 class periods. We have 21 students + myself. I took notes on the first class, leaving 12 class periods, and there is one class TBD (what we do that day depends on a conference I am scheduled to attend). That leaves 11. Obviously, I am not that good at math, but last time I checked 21/2 is 10.5, which means that if we continue to pair up to take notes, 10 class periods will be covered by pairs of students and someone will have to take notes by themselves (or they can pair with me or another student who wishes to take notes again).This long and ponderous explanation leads me to . . . each student is required to take notes for only one class, but can take notes for two classes if they wish. If anyone has any questions, post them here or email me privately.
High Stakes Testing Cartoon
I found this cartoon on www.pioneer.net. It called my attention as it highlights a current attitude in American public systems due to the policy of high stakes testing. After discussions of the reading yesterday, I can see the beggining of standardized test with the Cardinal Priciples in 1917 and how the more recent NCLB has stacked on top of prior policy to make a significant change in the Grammar of School by increasing the importance of standardized tests.
Dilemmas of Discourse-Oriented Teaching in One Middle School Mathematics Classroom
http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.winthrop.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9702073598&site=ehost-live
This article illustrates the use of discourse-oriented teaching through a single case study. This reform creates a shift "from a view of the teacher as dispenser of knowledge to a view of teacher as facilitator of knowledge production." This practice, as described, is vaguely reminiscent of the Socratic Method, in which parties involved ask questions and are encouraged to use reason to arrive at answers or hypotheses that can either be proven or contradicted. The first dilemma that this article discusses arises from the fact that the teacher must facilitate true knowledge. Thus it is the teacher's responsibility to guide or lead the discourse, which can easily revert to a dispensation of knowledge. "The pupil's task is to come up with the correct solutions to problems seemingly spontaneously, while all the time trying to discern in the teacher's clues, cues, questions and presuppositions what that required solution actually is." The point is made that students may not completely grasp the required mathematical understanding simply by watching another person work out the problem. Rather, they must ask questions to understand the process, and in order to show understanding of the process, they must be able to explain it in their own words to someone else.
How does this case study fit in with Tyack and Cuban's perspective on reform? Most aspects of this particular classroom fit very well with T & C's Grammar of School. The class is self-contained, concentrates on one subject (mathematics), lasts for a set period of time, incorporates familiar manipulatives, and involves group work. The most notable deviations from this grammar lie in the fact that the teacher elicits mathematical concepts from her students rather than dispensing them and that there are no textbooks. The students were not shown how to work problems nor were they given example problems. While the mathematics class involved in this case study seemed to perform (in class) at least as well as in a traditional setting, I would have difficulty as a student without the retention of a textbook (or really thorough class notes) to aid my learning. As we have discussed in class, no school reform can possibly result in a utopia of perfect learning. The authors of this article end on a similar sentiment, "We have concluded that there is something going on inside the minds of students and realized that students learn only information that is meaningful to them. Thus, students must be involved in a fundamental way with their own education."
This article illustrates the use of discourse-oriented teaching through a single case study. This reform creates a shift "from a view of the teacher as dispenser of knowledge to a view of teacher as facilitator of knowledge production." This practice, as described, is vaguely reminiscent of the Socratic Method, in which parties involved ask questions and are encouraged to use reason to arrive at answers or hypotheses that can either be proven or contradicted. The first dilemma that this article discusses arises from the fact that the teacher must facilitate true knowledge. Thus it is the teacher's responsibility to guide or lead the discourse, which can easily revert to a dispensation of knowledge. "The pupil's task is to come up with the correct solutions to problems seemingly spontaneously, while all the time trying to discern in the teacher's clues, cues, questions and presuppositions what that required solution actually is." The point is made that students may not completely grasp the required mathematical understanding simply by watching another person work out the problem. Rather, they must ask questions to understand the process, and in order to show understanding of the process, they must be able to explain it in their own words to someone else.
How does this case study fit in with Tyack and Cuban's perspective on reform? Most aspects of this particular classroom fit very well with T & C's Grammar of School. The class is self-contained, concentrates on one subject (mathematics), lasts for a set period of time, incorporates familiar manipulatives, and involves group work. The most notable deviations from this grammar lie in the fact that the teacher elicits mathematical concepts from her students rather than dispensing them and that there are no textbooks. The students were not shown how to work problems nor were they given example problems. While the mathematics class involved in this case study seemed to perform (in class) at least as well as in a traditional setting, I would have difficulty as a student without the retention of a textbook (or really thorough class notes) to aid my learning. As we have discussed in class, no school reform can possibly result in a utopia of perfect learning. The authors of this article end on a similar sentiment, "We have concluded that there is something going on inside the minds of students and realized that students learn only information that is meaningful to them. Thus, students must be involved in a fundamental way with their own education."
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
More reforms for SC schools?
http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/300514.html
This is an article discussing implementing changes in our schools Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests, PACT, and accountability in general. Seemingly very much supported, this bill proposes to make changes to the Education Accountability Act. Originally, the law requires students in grades third through eighth to have annual testing. The new changes would mean that students PACT testing could be broken up into sections, allowing for faster test results. Exit exams would be replaced with course end tests and annual report cards would be changed for easier reading would also be implemented by this reform.
This could be tied into our reading on school reform and how the schools change reform themselves. I agree with a statement the book makes commenting that if teachers work collaboratively with each other and with policy advocates, sharing goals and tactics, supporting each other in assessing progress, then such an approach to school improvement could work better than mandates from above. This becoming a group/school effort could achieve many goals without having to have a law stating it.
This is an article discussing implementing changes in our schools Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests, PACT, and accountability in general. Seemingly very much supported, this bill proposes to make changes to the Education Accountability Act. Originally, the law requires students in grades third through eighth to have annual testing. The new changes would mean that students PACT testing could be broken up into sections, allowing for faster test results. Exit exams would be replaced with course end tests and annual report cards would be changed for easier reading would also be implemented by this reform.
This could be tied into our reading on school reform and how the schools change reform themselves. I agree with a statement the book makes commenting that if teachers work collaboratively with each other and with policy advocates, sharing goals and tactics, supporting each other in assessing progress, then such an approach to school improvement could work better than mandates from above. This becoming a group/school effort could achieve many goals without having to have a law stating it.
Reflection on 'Tinkering'
After reading the book for our lessons I had a few thoughts come to mind about my personal experiences with some of the points discussed in the last chapters. I do remember the old film projectors and the one or two televisions on carts that would be wheeled into our classrooms for films or videos. I remember the teacher's frustration with setup and when the equipment would not function for some reason. I remember the first Laserdisc and its bugs as well. Soon after this, I remember the school getting televisions in every classroom, not that we watched much on them, but they were now in every classroom. Some of the other technological advances that I remember were the overhead projectors (as archaic as they now seem) and the improved blackboard- the Dry Erase Board that I now see in College classrooms and have heard are moving into the more affluent schools.
I suppose that I was lucky in my High school that we took a computer class that taught us the general basics of typing and Word programs. It was a required class at my school. I hope that these classes are more advanced now but I am not sure. The Internet was just becoming popular when I was in High school so I did not really explore it until I was in college.
Looking at the many different 'shooting star' reforms that have had some impact in our schools makes me also think about our schools measuring up to other countries. Has it ever occurred to anyone to look at what other countries are doing in their schools as a guideline for our own? I spent some time in Austria as a student ambassador in my teens and, even though I did not truly attend the school I did spend some time with my homestay sibling in his school. They spoke three languages, standard and were surprised that I did not. They learn multiple languages from the very beginning of school and I personally think that it would be easier to learn another language while you are learning your own. Research into brain development proves that young children are still developing their language centers.
I do understand that we as Americans tend to think of ourselves as superior to other cultures in all things but if our education system is not measuring up to international standards, why don't we take some of the ideas and concepts that apparently work in other countries and adapt them for our own schools?
A Helpful Blog
I stumbled across this blog today: Study Hacks. It's written by the author of How to Become A Straight A Student and How to Win at College. It seems like it could be very helpful for folks, even though since all of you are in graduate school you have mastered some of these skills already. I am even thinking about adopting some of the strategies to be more successful and productive in my own work. Check it out!
Monday, January 28, 2008
A couple of links (and very brief commentary)
Science Daily reports a Univ. of Missouri Study that finds low income students less likely to have qualified math teachers.
How would each perspective interpret this bit of news?
Changes in Store for Sunset Park Elementary
A local magnet school isn't very attractive. Is it the year round calendar (which would speak to Tyak and Cuban's work on the grammar of schooling) or something else?
How would each perspective interpret this bit of news?
Changes in Store for Sunset Park Elementary
A local magnet school isn't very attractive. Is it the year round calendar (which would speak to Tyak and Cuban's work on the grammar of schooling) or something else?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Education and its Link to the Economy
The authors agree with Cremin’s position(page 36, last paragraph) that schools should not be made scapegoats for the nation’s economic problems: “As Cremin noted, the attempt in recent years to blame alleged educational decline for the nation’s woes is irresponsible. The argument that poor schools produce poor workers and that improved schools would solve economic ills has two major defects: it scapegoats educators; and it blurs understanding of a labor market in which the largest proportion of new jobs are relatively unskilled and millions of skilled workers are jobless.”
If the largest portion of new jobs are for unskilled workers, doesn’t that suggest that we are not an economically competitive nation? And if millions of skilled workers are jobless, doesn’t that suggest that workers that are skilled don’t have the right skills? If this is the state of our economy, perhaps it could be said that our educational system is not keeping pace with the needs of a changing economy.
As Chairman Ben Bernanke noted in his speech on Education and Economic Competitiveness http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070924a.htm
at the U.S. Chamber Education and Workforce Summit in Washington D.C. last September, the demand for more-educated workers with technical skills has been increasing rapidly, partly because of the advances in information and communication technologies, while the supply of highly educated workers has also risen. Nevertheless, the supply of educated workers has not kept pace with demand. He further asserts that from a macroeconomic standpoint, education is directly linked to productivity, which, in turn, is a critical determinant of the overall standard of living. He states that continuing advances in technology, as well as baby-boomers leaving the market and increased globalization, will put a premium on education. And while its difficult to predict which jobs will be most affected by technology, better educated workers will be better prepared to adapt. Ultimately, Bernanke contends that lifelong learning, particularly in light of advancing technological change, is an excellent investment for individuals and society as a whole.
If the largest portion of new jobs are for unskilled workers, doesn’t that suggest that we are not an economically competitive nation? And if millions of skilled workers are jobless, doesn’t that suggest that workers that are skilled don’t have the right skills? If this is the state of our economy, perhaps it could be said that our educational system is not keeping pace with the needs of a changing economy.
As Chairman Ben Bernanke noted in his speech on Education and Economic Competitiveness http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070924a.htm
at the U.S. Chamber Education and Workforce Summit in Washington D.C. last September, the demand for more-educated workers with technical skills has been increasing rapidly, partly because of the advances in information and communication technologies, while the supply of highly educated workers has also risen. Nevertheless, the supply of educated workers has not kept pace with demand. He further asserts that from a macroeconomic standpoint, education is directly linked to productivity, which, in turn, is a critical determinant of the overall standard of living. He states that continuing advances in technology, as well as baby-boomers leaving the market and increased globalization, will put a premium on education. And while its difficult to predict which jobs will be most affected by technology, better educated workers will be better prepared to adapt. Ultimately, Bernanke contends that lifelong learning, particularly in light of advancing technological change, is an excellent investment for individuals and society as a whole.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
2 million minutes
http://www.2mminutes.com
The site 2 million minutes refers to the time students spend in school from ninth grade until high school graduation. Robert A. Compton and company follow the experiences of six students from the United States, China, and India through the course of what the filmmaker feels are the most crucial years in education. The documentary gives a glimpse into the attitudes and work ethics these students apply to their schooling. I feel that we as a country are falling behind in the global economy due to self inflicted wounds. This film shows the seriousness with which students view their education abroad in comparison to the more laid back approach U.S. students appear to take. Overseas they worry about competing in the work force while many of our own adolescents are concerned with getting into the right social group. Which is more important for U.S. schools to focus on; the academic, social, vocational, or personal needs of students? If knowledge is truly power, and almost fifty percent of students in South Carolina do not graduate high school, I think the future of our country is at great risk.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Religious Faith in our Education.
In “Tinkering Toward Utopia”, and our class discussion and reading a point was brought up that I would like to further address concerning faith and our basis on public education. A large part of why I believe we have moved so far in education from where we first began concerns religion. Our nation, as a whole, once embraced the idea of democracy and public education that was based highly on Biblical principals. Years later, the mention of God, Bible and religion has been taken out of schools. The basis of our public education was founded on Biblical principals. A large part of the faith we had for public education stemmed from the Democracy. What was the foundation of the Democracy? Was it not the Bible, Faith in God that our Democracy would operate successfully? My point being, I see trend beginning to unfold in my mind that public education without this foundation will continue to struggle. I am skeptical to think that only man has all the answers for our educational progress because of where it has led us.
We further discussed in class about our faith in education dwindling in the 1950’s, and how our society as a whole became more worried about what others thought of us. This notion led us to change or add other dimensions to our educational systems. The myth of progress seemed to change the outlook and unsettle our educational systems to a point where we felt the need to want more out of life, the need to move or travel. This I believe has helped us because of the experiential learning factor tied in with our education gives us a deeper understanding of who we are as individuals, thus helping us accomplish more.
We further discussed in class about our faith in education dwindling in the 1950’s, and how our society as a whole became more worried about what others thought of us. This notion led us to change or add other dimensions to our educational systems. The myth of progress seemed to change the outlook and unsettle our educational systems to a point where we felt the need to want more out of life, the need to move or travel. This I believe has helped us because of the experiential learning factor tied in with our education gives us a deeper understanding of who we are as individuals, thus helping us accomplish more.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Class Summary 1-22-08
http://www.birdnest.org/mckelveyk2/Educ600/Notes1_22_08.doc
Click the link above for the full version of notes from Teaching in a Democracy 1-22-08. Please post a comment if you notice any errors or omissions that need to be corrected. Summary below compiled, revised, and edited by Kristan McKelvey and Diana Smith. Edits by Dr. Pope are noted.
We first reviewed the three political perspectives discussed last class period - Conservative, Liberal, and Radical. Conservatives believe the role of education is to transmit to the young the essentials of our culture in order to "conserve" those things about our culture that are important and necessary to function and survive economically. They believe equal education opportunity is important and define it in terms of the removal of formal or legal obstacles. Other important points are: public school has value, independent talent and merit are important, Academic and Vocational goals are prioritized, and conservatives support a capitalist economic system. Regarding a capitalist economic system two important points are: Private schools (those who can afford to can get a better education) and Voucher systems (1950s Milton Friedman suggested a voucher system may promote educator competition and therefore increase the quality of education).
Liberals believe in equal educational opportunity and define it as (1) the removal of formal or legal obstacles for all and (2) the introduction of compensatory measures that would bring those with disadvantages (poor/minorities) to the same level as those without disadvantages. They believe that Social and Personal, as well as Academic and Vocational, educational goals are priorities because not all children have the same advantages. They agree that independent talent and merit are important, the capitalist economic viewpoint is good, and public education is a public good. Society is better the more educated the children are, so members of society are obligated to make that happen.
Radicals believe that the education system is inherently unfair and serves to perpetuate this unfair system by giving those with advantages more advantage and keeping those with disadvantages down. They disagree with a capitalist economic viewpoint and focus on the economic and social structure that is perpetuated by this type of viewpoint. Marx interprets capitalism as depending on *economic* (edited) inequality. Schools are structured to perpetuate differences since people make choices out of narrow self interest that may disadvantage others. Radicals believe we need a new game in which students have a variety of areas to challenges themselves and learn what they are good at.
Tinkering Toward Utopia - Discusses the dynamic between policy talk and institutional change. The focus is: If you look at the history of American public education, once it took hold, people invested themselves in it and had faith in the positive effects school can make. In the past 30 years this seems to have reversed itself. Now Americans are highly critical of public education. Why? Expectations of education have increased but the economic reality is not quite where it should be. Plenty of people who have very little education end up with a great deal of publicized money and success (entertainers, sports stars, etc.). This leads to skepticism of the value of schools, especially since media portrayal of schools is not friendly.
Prologue - Faith in public education has faded in the past 30 years. What has driven this faith in the past? (1) Public education and Democracy have been wedded since the early years. Thomas Jefferson believed ordinary citizens should have governmental power and, in order to wield that power effectively, must have an education. (2) The people that had a voice to promote public schools were those which the public school system benefited the most. (3) Up until the 1950s Americans did not know a great deal about international happenings and felt secure that America was a dominant world power. We are now more aware of international events and are more concerned about whether we really are dominant. (4) Founding of the U.S. – Origins and development of our national myths of Utopia. America was originally established as a potential utopian religious ideal society. There was a divine utopian mindset. Americans believed that to create this Utopia, they should begin instruction early. In the 1640s, the Mass. Bay colony passed the first public education law, known as the Old Deluder Satan Act, which reflected the importance of education to the religious utopian colony. The law said that towns have to have a school to teach kids to read the Bible in order to resist the Devil. They believed education is necessary for the maintenance and advancement of society. (5) Idea of a Frontier – Progress is always possible or "The grass is always greener on the other side". We have put a tremendous amount of faith in schools to create utopia and have become disillusioned by education's failure to live up to unfair expectations.
Reasons for reading Tinkering Toward Utopia - (1) It gives us a sense of historical development of schooling. (2) Tyack and Cuban are making a prescriptive arguement about the way change in school happens. Their model is Tinkering - that small, incremental changes are best. p.5 (3) Opposing arguements say (a) educational reform cycles and (b) sometimes tinkering doesn't do enough or it is too slow. Important Phrase ***The grammar of schooling*** p. 9 “… the grammar of schooling include such familiar practices as the age-grading of students, the division of knowledge into separate subjects, and the self-contained classroom with one teacher.” This grammar frames and forms how we view ideas about schooling, how institutional change happens, and how well changes succeed. Changes that threaten identities or depart from this grammar are harder to make and succeed.
Chapter 1 - There are 2 dominant myths (Progress and Merit) and 2 dominant metaphors (Market and Factory). The last part of class was spent discussing the myth of progress. Utopian thinking is that we can make things better. In the early 20th century scientific languages and approaches became involved in the planning of the educational system due to the emergence of new social sciences. Graduates of the social sciences believed that an Ideal + Tools of Social Progress + Education = Utopia. This group was known as the Administrative Progressives. They had faith in social science and thought it would provide rational answers to social problems just as physical science provided rational answers to physical problems. Administrative Progressives brought Standardization (in subjects, assessments, architecture of schools, etc.) and Consolidation (every student should be learning the same stuff in the same way under the same roof.) More students than ever were enrolled and attending school. Not all students learn the same so Tracks were developed in order to neatly organize and “box” students (honors track, remedial track, etc.) Some of societies ills are being taken care of (Americanization of immigrants, School lunches/breakfast.) Schools became larger, more diversified, and more comprehensive. They had to accommodate more students and offer more options. Administrative Progressives viewed this as progress. This version is very uneven in the U.S. and is more descriptive of urban schools - Rural lags behind Urban, Poor/Wealthy, Immigrants/Natives, Blacks/Whites. Gender becomes mixed up in this as well. (1) Colonial periods – Teachers were mostly male. No standardization or certification existed. Females could run Dame Schools. (2) 1800s – Women moved into teaching positions since men now had more opportunities for jobs that required more “intellect”. Public schools were developing and needed more teachers. The dominant social attitude is that women are better at managing children. Women would go to a Normal School to learn to teach. People worried that boys were becoming feminized so they injected a little masculine PE and sports. Women were not allowed to remain teachers if they married. (3) 20th century – WWII – Men were at war. Women were needed to fill jobs and the marriage rule was eliminated. However administrative positions were developing and to this day continue to be male dominated. Women were not allowed into administrative positions and were seen as more fit to teach (especially younger grades). Until 1960s Administrative Progressives defined progress. After 1960s this begins to change. Education does not include everyone. The state of affairs is called into question. Brown vs. Board of Educ. suit occurred in 1954. There are 2 points: First, the questioning of the methods of progress, but not necessarily the goals. Second, the questioning of the actual goals toward the end of the 1960s. (Edited) *Dr. Pope said, "In the 1960's the idea of universal progress began to be questioned as radicals pointed out that progress for some wasn't progress for all and, for others, their idea of progress depended on others being denied opportunity."* Progress for some may depend on denial of progress for others.
Click the link above for the full version of notes from Teaching in a Democracy 1-22-08. Please post a comment if you notice any errors or omissions that need to be corrected. Summary below compiled, revised, and edited by Kristan McKelvey and Diana Smith. Edits by Dr. Pope are noted.
We first reviewed the three political perspectives discussed last class period - Conservative, Liberal, and Radical. Conservatives believe the role of education is to transmit to the young the essentials of our culture in order to "conserve" those things about our culture that are important and necessary to function and survive economically. They believe equal education opportunity is important and define it in terms of the removal of formal or legal obstacles. Other important points are: public school has value, independent talent and merit are important, Academic and Vocational goals are prioritized, and conservatives support a capitalist economic system. Regarding a capitalist economic system two important points are: Private schools (those who can afford to can get a better education) and Voucher systems (1950s Milton Friedman suggested a voucher system may promote educator competition and therefore increase the quality of education).
Liberals believe in equal educational opportunity and define it as (1) the removal of formal or legal obstacles for all and (2) the introduction of compensatory measures that would bring those with disadvantages (poor/minorities) to the same level as those without disadvantages. They believe that Social and Personal, as well as Academic and Vocational, educational goals are priorities because not all children have the same advantages. They agree that independent talent and merit are important, the capitalist economic viewpoint is good, and public education is a public good. Society is better the more educated the children are, so members of society are obligated to make that happen.
Radicals believe that the education system is inherently unfair and serves to perpetuate this unfair system by giving those with advantages more advantage and keeping those with disadvantages down. They disagree with a capitalist economic viewpoint and focus on the economic and social structure that is perpetuated by this type of viewpoint. Marx interprets capitalism as depending on *economic* (edited) inequality. Schools are structured to perpetuate differences since people make choices out of narrow self interest that may disadvantage others. Radicals believe we need a new game in which students have a variety of areas to challenges themselves and learn what they are good at.
Tinkering Toward Utopia - Discusses the dynamic between policy talk and institutional change. The focus is: If you look at the history of American public education, once it took hold, people invested themselves in it and had faith in the positive effects school can make. In the past 30 years this seems to have reversed itself. Now Americans are highly critical of public education. Why? Expectations of education have increased but the economic reality is not quite where it should be. Plenty of people who have very little education end up with a great deal of publicized money and success (entertainers, sports stars, etc.). This leads to skepticism of the value of schools, especially since media portrayal of schools is not friendly.
Prologue - Faith in public education has faded in the past 30 years. What has driven this faith in the past? (1) Public education and Democracy have been wedded since the early years. Thomas Jefferson believed ordinary citizens should have governmental power and, in order to wield that power effectively, must have an education. (2) The people that had a voice to promote public schools were those which the public school system benefited the most. (3) Up until the 1950s Americans did not know a great deal about international happenings and felt secure that America was a dominant world power. We are now more aware of international events and are more concerned about whether we really are dominant. (4) Founding of the U.S. – Origins and development of our national myths of Utopia. America was originally established as a potential utopian religious ideal society. There was a divine utopian mindset. Americans believed that to create this Utopia, they should begin instruction early. In the 1640s, the Mass. Bay colony passed the first public education law, known as the Old Deluder Satan Act, which reflected the importance of education to the religious utopian colony. The law said that towns have to have a school to teach kids to read the Bible in order to resist the Devil. They believed education is necessary for the maintenance and advancement of society. (5) Idea of a Frontier – Progress is always possible or "The grass is always greener on the other side". We have put a tremendous amount of faith in schools to create utopia and have become disillusioned by education's failure to live up to unfair expectations.
Reasons for reading Tinkering Toward Utopia - (1) It gives us a sense of historical development of schooling. (2) Tyack and Cuban are making a prescriptive arguement about the way change in school happens. Their model is Tinkering - that small, incremental changes are best. p.5 (3) Opposing arguements say (a) educational reform cycles and (b) sometimes tinkering doesn't do enough or it is too slow. Important Phrase ***The grammar of schooling*** p. 9 “… the grammar of schooling include such familiar practices as the age-grading of students, the division of knowledge into separate subjects, and the self-contained classroom with one teacher.” This grammar frames and forms how we view ideas about schooling, how institutional change happens, and how well changes succeed. Changes that threaten identities or depart from this grammar are harder to make and succeed.
Chapter 1 - There are 2 dominant myths (Progress and Merit) and 2 dominant metaphors (Market and Factory). The last part of class was spent discussing the myth of progress. Utopian thinking is that we can make things better. In the early 20th century scientific languages and approaches became involved in the planning of the educational system due to the emergence of new social sciences. Graduates of the social sciences believed that an Ideal + Tools of Social Progress + Education = Utopia. This group was known as the Administrative Progressives. They had faith in social science and thought it would provide rational answers to social problems just as physical science provided rational answers to physical problems. Administrative Progressives brought Standardization (in subjects, assessments, architecture of schools, etc.) and Consolidation (every student should be learning the same stuff in the same way under the same roof.) More students than ever were enrolled and attending school. Not all students learn the same so Tracks were developed in order to neatly organize and “box” students (honors track, remedial track, etc.) Some of societies ills are being taken care of (Americanization of immigrants, School lunches/breakfast.) Schools became larger, more diversified, and more comprehensive. They had to accommodate more students and offer more options. Administrative Progressives viewed this as progress. This version is very uneven in the U.S. and is more descriptive of urban schools - Rural lags behind Urban, Poor/Wealthy, Immigrants/Natives, Blacks/Whites. Gender becomes mixed up in this as well. (1) Colonial periods – Teachers were mostly male. No standardization or certification existed. Females could run Dame Schools. (2) 1800s – Women moved into teaching positions since men now had more opportunities for jobs that required more “intellect”. Public schools were developing and needed more teachers. The dominant social attitude is that women are better at managing children. Women would go to a Normal School to learn to teach. People worried that boys were becoming feminized so they injected a little masculine PE and sports. Women were not allowed to remain teachers if they married. (3) 20th century – WWII – Men were at war. Women were needed to fill jobs and the marriage rule was eliminated. However administrative positions were developing and to this day continue to be male dominated. Women were not allowed into administrative positions and were seen as more fit to teach (especially younger grades). Until 1960s Administrative Progressives defined progress. After 1960s this begins to change. Education does not include everyone. The state of affairs is called into question. Brown vs. Board of Educ. suit occurred in 1954. There are 2 points: First, the questioning of the methods of progress, but not necessarily the goals. Second, the questioning of the actual goals toward the end of the 1960s. (Edited) *Dr. Pope said, "In the 1960's the idea of universal progress began to be questioned as radicals pointed out that progress for some wasn't progress for all and, for others, their idea of progress depended on others being denied opportunity."* Progress for some may depend on denial of progress for others.
Monday, January 21, 2008
"Unfair progress"
The following is a few thoughts and questions generated while reading about the “progress” of the educational system through reform. Educational reform that only produces progress for a single or certain social groups may seem unfair or discriminatory at first but may eventually lead to other social groups being motivated to bring about reform that will enhance their education also. While different groups may be progressing at different times or rates, the educational system as a whole is improving.
It is apparent that the reforms pushed by the administrative progressives only benefited those who came from urban, middle class to wealthy families. However I believe once other social groups saw the benefits or progress that this demographic group was receiving the other social groups’ value of education increased. These neglected social groups then unified and developed reform that would bring about equality but bring about equality by increasing the advantages their groups would receive. Yes it did take time for the gaps in privilege to narrow and there are still some gaps but educational opportunities have increased and improved for all social groups. It may be only possible to advance the institution of public education one component at a time. To delay the improvement in education of some groups in order to develop policies that benefit all groups, equally, and at the same time may do nothing but prevent the advancement of education and society as a whole.
If a policy is developed that would only progress certain social groups, is it unfair to withhold reform that would enable those certain groups to have more potential? If these policies are withheld will it discourage social groups from trying to find new ways to improve education? If these “unfair” reforms are implemented will it encourage other social groups to seek new policy to improve their education?
It is apparent that the reforms pushed by the administrative progressives only benefited those who came from urban, middle class to wealthy families. However I believe once other social groups saw the benefits or progress that this demographic group was receiving the other social groups’ value of education increased. These neglected social groups then unified and developed reform that would bring about equality but bring about equality by increasing the advantages their groups would receive. Yes it did take time for the gaps in privilege to narrow and there are still some gaps but educational opportunities have increased and improved for all social groups. It may be only possible to advance the institution of public education one component at a time. To delay the improvement in education of some groups in order to develop policies that benefit all groups, equally, and at the same time may do nothing but prevent the advancement of education and society as a whole.
If a policy is developed that would only progress certain social groups, is it unfair to withhold reform that would enable those certain groups to have more potential? If these policies are withheld will it discourage social groups from trying to find new ways to improve education? If these “unfair” reforms are implemented will it encourage other social groups to seek new policy to improve their education?
School Incentives (Revised)
The following is an analysis of an article that I found on the US News Web-site. The article titled The value of Good Grades talks about some current methods that schools within our country are using to spark the interest of students in school and making good grades. Go to:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2008/01/03/the-value-of-good-grades.html
Immediately after reading this article, I could relate its content to the text in Tinkering Towards Utopia and how the issue of "getting students interested in school" kept coming up during the reading.
This notion of "getting students interested in school" is something that the American Public School System has been concerned about and new policies and programs have sprung up through history because of it. In chapter 1 of Tinkering Towards Utopia, the authors mention how in the 1940's there was an emphasis on "competitive male-only athletics teams" and other new techniques to getting boys interested in school.
The US News article talks about schools offering things such as happy meals from McDonald's or even cash money to students who perform at a certain level. On one hand we can see a corporation advertising their product and on the other, we have students receiving money for academic reasons. Incentives are good, we all like to be rewarded and live in a society where we are typically rewarder for our hard work. It is my belief however, that rewards should fit within the certain nature of what we are being rewarded for.
Although I do not agree with a McDonald's sticker on a report card, rewarding a child with a happy meal is not what concerns me. It is the thought of motivating children with money that gets under my skin. I would hate to think that educators have so little imagination to come up with good ways to involve children in school than simply money. What types of values is this teaching to young American students? I find this method as an extreme solution that is only giving students wrong reasons to excel. Should we not strive to find incentives that make students like academics for what they are?
The article does mention how schools are also paying students for tutoring other students. I see this as a totally different idea that is not based on rewarding students with money for good grades but for a service instead. In this situation, the student is being rewarded for extra effort and this would be a totally different discussion.
It is concerning to see how far we can go to keep American children interested in school. It is even more alarming to think about what will be the next move to try to keep students in school and doing well in school and just how these moves will influence our students academically and socially.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2008/01/03/the-value-of-good-grades.html
Immediately after reading this article, I could relate its content to the text in Tinkering Towards Utopia and how the issue of "getting students interested in school" kept coming up during the reading.
This notion of "getting students interested in school" is something that the American Public School System has been concerned about and new policies and programs have sprung up through history because of it. In chapter 1 of Tinkering Towards Utopia, the authors mention how in the 1940's there was an emphasis on "competitive male-only athletics teams" and other new techniques to getting boys interested in school.
The US News article talks about schools offering things such as happy meals from McDonald's or even cash money to students who perform at a certain level. On one hand we can see a corporation advertising their product and on the other, we have students receiving money for academic reasons. Incentives are good, we all like to be rewarded and live in a society where we are typically rewarder for our hard work. It is my belief however, that rewards should fit within the certain nature of what we are being rewarded for.
Although I do not agree with a McDonald's sticker on a report card, rewarding a child with a happy meal is not what concerns me. It is the thought of motivating children with money that gets under my skin. I would hate to think that educators have so little imagination to come up with good ways to involve children in school than simply money. What types of values is this teaching to young American students? I find this method as an extreme solution that is only giving students wrong reasons to excel. Should we not strive to find incentives that make students like academics for what they are?
The article does mention how schools are also paying students for tutoring other students. I see this as a totally different idea that is not based on rewarding students with money for good grades but for a service instead. In this situation, the student is being rewarded for extra effort and this would be a totally different discussion.
It is concerning to see how far we can go to keep American children interested in school. It is even more alarming to think about what will be the next move to try to keep students in school and doing well in school and just how these moves will influence our students academically and socially.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Reflections on Tinkering... Ch 1-2
Our reading for the week ends Chapter 2 with these words: “But conversation about the purposes and character of schooling is not - and should not be – a matter for experts or visible leaders only. It is an essential way for citizens to exercise their trusteeship in preserving what is valuable in a common institution and correcting what is not”.
I am a strong proponent of a parent being an educational advocate for their own children. As a parent we know our children far better than any teacher who only sees the child a few hours a week possibly could. As an active parent in the Fort Mill Schools my children attend, I can say that individuals have to be determined and persistent to have any influence in determining what is valuable within a school. Here are two examples from my personal experience:
Prior to the 1999-2000 school year, block scheduling was not practiced in Fort Mill Schools, and the school year ended in early June. During those years before block scheduling, Memorial Day was a scheduled school day. Memorial Day is a federal holiday that recognizes U.S. men and women who have died in military service to our country. Parents who did not agree to dishonor the memory of those who have fought and died for the freedoms we now enjoy, kept their children home from school that day. Schools felt the impact of this in a reduction students attending school that day. When I kept my child home from school that day, I let the school teacher and administration know my reasoning. Block scheduling changed our school calendar to end school before the holiday, and made this a non-issue, until local schools were forced to change the calendar start date. This moved the school end date into June. It was sad to see that draft schedules for the current school year were issued with the federal holiday as a school day. However feedback for the calendar resulted in a final version of the school calendar that has this day as a holiday from school. This was a success for patriotic parents.
Before physical education (PE) was required as often as it currently is, elementary students were on a 6 day rotation for PE due to the number of students in each grade level. This means that every 6th school day, children would have PE class for one 50 minute block of time. In addition to this, classes were normally scheduled for a daily recess on the playground for 20-30 minutes. Until recently, it was common practice for students that misbehaved in class or did not complete homework assignments to be punished by having 5 minute increments of time taken away from their recess play. This punishment time was to be spent sitting against the school wall watching the rest of the class at play. Having volunteered with children for several years, and tired of seeing so many sitting against the wall when I was at school, I wanted to suggest a change. I wanted to suggest that instead of sitting, the children should be required to walk or run laps, the number determined by the teacher, around the playground before having any play time. This would allow the students to expel some energy and be physical so they could be set up for success in returning to the class room where they would be expected to sit still and focus on work again. I went to the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meeting and got support from that group to present the idea to the principal, the person who could make this change in the school. Although the principal was very polite, she explained the reasons why that could not work at our school and thanked me for sharing my concerns. While this could have been the end of the story, it was not, because PTA meeting notes are shared with all the teachers at the school. The teachers saw the discussion of this idea and as individuals adopted this type of policy for their classes. Now I am happy to report that it is common practice at our elementary school.
While these are only small steps, I submit that they are the only kind that parents are permitted to make within our school system. I encourage each of us to be remain mindful of changes we could suggest while continuing to support our local schools.
I am a strong proponent of a parent being an educational advocate for their own children. As a parent we know our children far better than any teacher who only sees the child a few hours a week possibly could. As an active parent in the Fort Mill Schools my children attend, I can say that individuals have to be determined and persistent to have any influence in determining what is valuable within a school. Here are two examples from my personal experience:
Prior to the 1999-2000 school year, block scheduling was not practiced in Fort Mill Schools, and the school year ended in early June. During those years before block scheduling, Memorial Day was a scheduled school day. Memorial Day is a federal holiday that recognizes U.S. men and women who have died in military service to our country. Parents who did not agree to dishonor the memory of those who have fought and died for the freedoms we now enjoy, kept their children home from school that day. Schools felt the impact of this in a reduction students attending school that day. When I kept my child home from school that day, I let the school teacher and administration know my reasoning. Block scheduling changed our school calendar to end school before the holiday, and made this a non-issue, until local schools were forced to change the calendar start date. This moved the school end date into June. It was sad to see that draft schedules for the current school year were issued with the federal holiday as a school day. However feedback for the calendar resulted in a final version of the school calendar that has this day as a holiday from school. This was a success for patriotic parents.
Before physical education (PE) was required as often as it currently is, elementary students were on a 6 day rotation for PE due to the number of students in each grade level. This means that every 6th school day, children would have PE class for one 50 minute block of time. In addition to this, classes were normally scheduled for a daily recess on the playground for 20-30 minutes. Until recently, it was common practice for students that misbehaved in class or did not complete homework assignments to be punished by having 5 minute increments of time taken away from their recess play. This punishment time was to be spent sitting against the school wall watching the rest of the class at play. Having volunteered with children for several years, and tired of seeing so many sitting against the wall when I was at school, I wanted to suggest a change. I wanted to suggest that instead of sitting, the children should be required to walk or run laps, the number determined by the teacher, around the playground before having any play time. This would allow the students to expel some energy and be physical so they could be set up for success in returning to the class room where they would be expected to sit still and focus on work again. I went to the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meeting and got support from that group to present the idea to the principal, the person who could make this change in the school. Although the principal was very polite, she explained the reasons why that could not work at our school and thanked me for sharing my concerns. While this could have been the end of the story, it was not, because PTA meeting notes are shared with all the teachers at the school. The teachers saw the discussion of this idea and as individuals adopted this type of policy for their classes. Now I am happy to report that it is common practice at our elementary school.
While these are only small steps, I submit that they are the only kind that parents are permitted to make within our school system. I encourage each of us to be remain mindful of changes we could suggest while continuing to support our local schools.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
January 15th Class Summary
Our brief class discussion today centered on general answers to the question “What is the purpose of American Education?” That question will underlie most of our conversations this semester.
Students answered that question with versions of the following:
· Education prepares students to meaningfully participate in society. (Often by giving them some type of knowledge). This participation happens in a variety of ways, from getting a job to voting to just knowing how to get along with others.
· Education helps students discover who they are as a person.
We then broke those two general responses into four general purposes of schooling. These were the purposes isolated by John Goodlad in his seminal work A Place Called School.
1. Academic – the obvious and most prevalent purpose. The transmission of knowledge to people who lack that knowledge. You can see this purpose in most of the elements of school – classes, tests, etc.
2. Social/Civic – Helping students acquire habits and skills that will enable them to get along with others and function in a democratic society. Accomplished through a variety of school practices, from lessons about sharing to student council elections.
3. Vocational – Helping students determine what they want to do for a vocation and helping them acquire the specific skills to do it. Schools offer specialized classes and vocational tracks, as well has having guidance counselors to fulfill this purpose.
4. Personal – Helping students figure out who they are in the broad sense. Extracurriculars and arts programs are examples of how schools work to fill this purpose.
Goodlad found that all of these were rated as “very important” by U.S. citizens. That raises questions about resource allocation and priorities.
Often, the prioritization of these goals is done according to one’s view of the place of schools within our larger social system. We discussed three different orientations to this question of the proper role of school in society. These orientations very roughly correspond to political orientations.
1. Conservative – Sees schools as serving a conserving social function. Schools pass down the key elements of our culture so that that culture is conserved from generation to generation. One of the key elements of this socialization process is economic. Schools ought to socialize people into our economic system of capitalism. A key aspect of this is achievement according to merit (individual hard work, talent, and ability are what determines achievement). Thus, schools should teach and emphasize individual responsibility and sort students according to merit. This prepares them for life in a capitalist social and economic system.
2. Liberal -- Agrees with the conservative perspective on the merits of capitalism and the necessity of preparing students for success in such a system. Takes some emphasis off the individual, however, by pointing out the negative effects of capitalism (and our social history) on certain groups (African-Americans, women, the poor). Thus, compensatory mechanisms are necessary to truly produce a sorting system based on merit. Schools are a primary mechanism of providing compensation to those groups and compensation might be necessary to assure children of those groups have equal opportunity to succeed in school.
3. Radical – Questions the basic assumption that capitalism is good. Points out how schools are used to socialize children into accepting their disadvantaged status.
Revised Reading Schedule
Again, I apologize for the bookstore not having Schools and Society. We will press on, however, and just begin with a historical overview. Here's the revised Reading Schedule:
January 15th Intro/Live text & blog training
Jan 22nd Tinkering Toward Utopia Prologue, 1, & 2
Jan 29th Tinkering Toward Utopia 3, 4, 5, and epilogue
February 5th School and Society Chapters 1-3
February 12th School and Society Chapters 4 & 5
February 19th School and Society Chapters 6 & 7
February 26th Closing of the American Mind Pp. 19-62
March 4th Closing of the American Mind Pp. 62-96
March 11th Closing of the American Mind, Pp. 336-382
March 18th Spring Break
March 25th TBA
April 1st Experience and Education
April 8th The Ethics of Teaching Chapters 1-3
April 15th The Ethics of Teaching Chapters 4-5
April 22nd The Ethics of Teaching Chapters 6 & 7
May 3rd Final Exam Time 3:00
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
We're also failing at basic research, apparently.
Comments on Greene, Jay P. and Shock, Catherine. (2008). Adding up to failure. City Journal. Vol. 18. No 1. Found at: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_snd-ed_schools.html. Accessed January 15, 2008.
Greene and Shock's basic premise is that colleges of education place too much emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity and too little on teaching the basics of education, namely math. They reach this conclusion by conducting an "analysis" of the course catalogs of the top 50 education programs and comparing the number of course titles and descriptions that feature the term multiculturalism or some variant thereof with the number of titles and descriptions that contain the word math.
There are many problems here, most of which are obvious, I think. But I will point them out anyway, because the fact that "research" like this gets published, even in a local, non-academic setting, is troublesome.
1. Uneven distribution of descriptors. Greene and Shock look at lots of synonyms of multiculturalism, but fail to consider any variations of math. Many colleges of education offer courses in educational research, which often requires statistical analysis. Others flat out offer statistics courses. Methods courses for preservice teachers also often feature instruction on how to best teach math, but math may not appear in the title. If all the elementary education students take classes in "Instructional fundamentals for the elementary student" that includes math instruction, even if math does not appear in the title of the course.
2. Colleges of Education don't offer every required course. Here's a novel idea. Say we want our students to learn basic mathematical concepts so that they can teach them to 5th graders. Maybe we shold make them take some math courses to make sure this happens. Wow! Who are we going to get to teach these courses? Wait! I've got it. We have a whole department of mathematics here at the university. I bet they are pretty good at teaching about math. I even bet that there are some folks out there who are majoring in math that want to teach math to high school students, so they take their education courses from an ed school and their math courses from the math department. Division of labor -- it's not just a fancy concept in sociology.
3. Maybe multiculturalism is important. Every teacher will be required to deal with a diverse bunch of students. Not every teacher will teach math. Given the univeristy's division of labor above, doesn't in make sense that colleges of ed have courses that help their students figure out how to deal with the diversity of students they will undoubtedly encounter in their classroom? It may be just a matter of priorities; the authors of the article seem to have different ones.
Greene and Shock's basic premise is that colleges of education place too much emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity and too little on teaching the basics of education, namely math. They reach this conclusion by conducting an "analysis" of the course catalogs of the top 50 education programs and comparing the number of course titles and descriptions that feature the term multiculturalism or some variant thereof with the number of titles and descriptions that contain the word math.
There are many problems here, most of which are obvious, I think. But I will point them out anyway, because the fact that "research" like this gets published, even in a local, non-academic setting, is troublesome.
1. Uneven distribution of descriptors. Greene and Shock look at lots of synonyms of multiculturalism, but fail to consider any variations of math. Many colleges of education offer courses in educational research, which often requires statistical analysis. Others flat out offer statistics courses. Methods courses for preservice teachers also often feature instruction on how to best teach math, but math may not appear in the title. If all the elementary education students take classes in "Instructional fundamentals for the elementary student" that includes math instruction, even if math does not appear in the title of the course.
2. Colleges of Education don't offer every required course. Here's a novel idea. Say we want our students to learn basic mathematical concepts so that they can teach them to 5th graders. Maybe we shold make them take some math courses to make sure this happens. Wow! Who are we going to get to teach these courses? Wait! I've got it. We have a whole department of mathematics here at the university. I bet they are pretty good at teaching about math. I even bet that there are some folks out there who are majoring in math that want to teach math to high school students, so they take their education courses from an ed school and their math courses from the math department. Division of labor -- it's not just a fancy concept in sociology.
3. Maybe multiculturalism is important. Every teacher will be required to deal with a diverse bunch of students. Not every teacher will teach math. Given the univeristy's division of labor above, doesn't in make sense that colleges of ed have courses that help their students figure out how to deal with the diversity of students they will undoubtedly encounter in their classroom? It may be just a matter of priorities; the authors of the article seem to have different ones.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Welcome
Welcome to the blog for EDUC 600 -- Teaching in a Democracy. This is a graduate course at Winthrop University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)