Another Interesting Podcast!

So, several days ago I listened to this podcast about morality.  It talks about some current research investigating where moral decisions come from.  I posted this link on Tuesday, but I want to try and sum up what it's about for those of you who don't have the time to listen to the broadcast.  I apologize in advance for the morbid scenario.

http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/09/morality-rebroadcast/

Scenario 1: You're standing near two railroad tracks that lie side-by-side.  Down the track there are six workers inspecting the tracks for damages.  Five of the workers are on the left track and one worker is on the right track.  All of a sudden, you see a train come around the bend and head straight for the workers on the left track.  Unfortunately, the workers have giant headphones on and are not faced toward the train.  They will be struck and killed.  But...there is a giant handle next to you.  If you pull the handle, it will divert the train to the right track and only one worker will die.  You're in the moment...it's a split-second decision.  What do you do?

Scenario 2: Again, there are five workers on a track, but this time all workers are on the same track.  This time you are standing on a footbridge above the tracks with another very large person.  Here comes the train.  The workers can't see or hear it and they will be killed.  However, you realize that if you give the stranger beside you a subtle nudge, you can force him off of the footbridge, onto the tracks, and stop the train.  For one person's life, you have just saved six.  What do you do?

So, in the podcast they present each of these scenarios to people on the street in New York to see what they say.  In the first scenario, ninety percent of respondents said they would pull the lever and sacrifice one worker's life to save the six.  However, ninety percent of respondents also said they would NOT push the man from the bridge to have the same effect.  When you think about it, this is an interesting concept.  Each action has the same result: one life lost and five lives saved.  But what is it about Scenario 2 that keeps us from pushing the man off the bridge?  Is this a decision that we make based on previous life experiences and socialization or is there some sort of hard-wiring in the brain that sets us up?  Believe it or not, there are scientists out there trying to come up with a rational answer to this question.

In the podcast they interview a scientist from Princeton named Josh Green that presents these scenarios to his subjects.  However, Josh has his subjects connected to a brain scanner that takes thousands of pictures of the brain while they think through the scenarios.  At the instant that a subject says "Yes, I would pull the lever" the brain images all show a distinct yellow spot in the frontal cortex.  At the moment that someone says "No, I would not push the man" the brain images all display another set of distinct yellow sections in a different location on the brain.  So, what this means is that these two sections of the brain are at war over who will be heard.  One is the voice of reason and logic...the other is the voice of empathy and good will.

So, how does this all tie into our readings?  Strike and Soltis use Chapter 6 (Professionalism) to speak about their overall idea of what morality is.  For example, they write:

"Moral decisions regarding choice and action require moral sensitivity, rationality, and the development of moral theory for which the primary evidence is our moral intuitions.  Moral intuitions, our sense of what is right and wrong, are the basic data for moral reasoning and the construction of moral theory."

Based on the studies of neuroscientists like Josh Green, is it conceivable that we might have a better way of making moral decisions in the future?  Will future technologies be able to help us to better analyze our thought processes?  How might this effect the way we make moral decisions?  After all, Strike and Soltis refer to moral intuitions as "data". 

If you're interested in the brain, check out Jonah Lehrer's blog.  Cut and paste this into your browser: 

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex

Education Highlights in the New Federal Budget

This class is about "big picture" items and you can't get any bigger than the federal budget. Here is a link to a short PDF summary of what's new in the budget re: education.

Class Reaction

     Hannah and Susan's presentation last night caught my attention big time. We've heard about different types of child abuse throughout the week, and their presentation was a great wrap up and eye opener. I grew up in Rock Hill and never thought I'd have many children in my classroom who were being abused or neglected, but it turns out I probably will. I'm glad they gave this presentation. Child abuse is hard to hear about and difficult to understand, but if we never learn about it we won't know how to handle the situation when we face it in the classroom.

     I know now that it's required by law to report any suspicion of abuse to DSS and that it's better to over report than underreport, but I still feel worried about upsetting parents. I know it's extremely important to report it, but I can see where some teachers would feel worried for their safety or worried that the school wouldn't back them up if parents came in to the schools. I'm also worried that as a teacher of small children, I will let myself get emotionally involved.

     My sister teaches at Bluffton High School near Hilton Head and her assistant principal (and close friend) has been on the news the past couple days. The assistant principal was approached by a student, who claimed his father was abusing him. She wanted to get him out of his dads home and in a home with his mother, who lives in another state. The student told her his dad was running a crack house, and the student was living in it. As of now, everyone believes the father is innocent.  Unfortunately the principal made a bad judgement call... she didn't report the possible abuse to DSS and she helped get the student to his mom. She has been charged with kidnapping and assisting a "run away" even though she had the students best interest at heart. She will more than likely lose her license and never be allowed to work in education again.

This just goes to show that even though we care about our students and want the best for them, we must follow the law and report the incident. The assistant principal feared for her students life and placed her career on the line to help him.

Yet another inappropriate student/teacher relationship...

Robert and Amanda’s presentation on personal freedom for teachers (and good ways to ensure you get fired from your job) was eye-opening and, at times, troubling. Liz and I spent several minutes after class discussing how ridiculous the case of the “drunken” pirate teacher seemed to be and what exactly the limits would be in a case like that. What if, for instance, I was photographed in a supermarket looking at a beer display? Would that be grounds for dismissal? The case for the pirate photograph seems wholly insubstantial, and yet, courts decided otherwise.

There are occasionally, however, very clear limits to what is permissible and what is not, and I found an article online after class that illustrates this pretty clearly. The story can be found here: http://news.aol.com/article/teacher-teen-student-found/356022.

In a nutshell, it’s another story of a teacher having an inappropriate relationship with a 15 year old student, and this time the teacher went the extra mile by kidnapping the boy and traveling to another state. This teacher had only been employed for five months, and it’s suggested that this case will result in a review of teacher education programs, which seems pretty reasonable, given the fact that several instances of teacher/student relationships have garnered media attention and I’m sure there are others out there that we never really hear about.

What I can never figure out with any of these cases is what exactly compels educators to cross this obvious moral line? I think we can all agree that having an intimate relationship with a 15 year old doesn’t exist in some murky, gray area of morality. It’s just wrong. And yet, it seems that, all too frequently, we see stories in the news about it. In this article, there’s even a photo gallery of “Teachers in Trouble,” so you can leisurely scroll through a who’s who of sexual offenders.

It seems like there would be a better method of psychiatric evaluation for prospective teachers that would help curb this sort of behavior. After all, if a woman who has been teaching for a mere five months starts a relationship with a student, this was obviously something she was particularly prone to. Even other students and the child’s parents had noticed the inappropriate nature of the relationship. The signs were obviously there!

Something else I found interesting was that, in the reader poll on the page, 34% of readers claimed to have been aware of an inappropriate relationship between a teacher and a student when they were in school. That number seems outrageously high to me, but then maybe it’s just an indicator that this is something we all need to be more consciously aware of.

Instruction and critical thinking

The problem posed at the beginning of chapter 5 in The Ethics of Teaching is, like most of the scenarios in the book, difficult to resolve. Personally, it is hard for me to look at this situation objectively. The authors even seem to admit that the subject might be a bit too complex to fully resolve in the book, stating that they “aren’t going to be able to do more than scratch the surface about [religious diversity and multiculturalism]” (75). I do appreciate, though, that the book illustrates a specific challenge at the heart of this problem. Strike and Soltis suggest that Mr. Huxley may need to “carefully distinguish between asking his students to know what evolution is as a framework in biology, and asking them to believe it” (82). While this is merely a component to the overall problem being faced by Mr. Huxley, it is a critical statement in defining the overall role of an educator.

An inherent part of being an educator is remaining unbiased. Certainly, being able to engage in independent thought is a hallmark of educated people, while merely following or swearing blind allegiance is something that is generally attributed to less educated members of society. Arriving at the cognitive point at which we can make decisions for ourselves is helped along by the teachers we have throughout our childhood and adolescence. An educator should be a person who provides information and the means to understand it. This information should, largely, not be subjective or reliant on a particular (i.e. - the teacher’s) point of view. For an educator to inject too much of his or her own beliefs into instruction is to make moot the teacher’s role in enabling students to engage their own critical thinking skills.

The Ethics of Teaching

On page 121 of The Ethics of Teaching, Soltis and student 1 are discussing God commanding or willing right actions. Soltis provides two answers which he readily admits are not very satisfactory and I agree. However I would like to point out that the second alternative which states "Actions are not right because God commands them. Instead, God commands them because they are right . . .suggests that what is right and wrong is not dependent on God's will" omits God's nature. God's very nature determines what He wills and commands. God IS just. God IS truth. God IS love. Therefore His commands to treat others fairly and to tell the truth and to love others are based on who God is. Because God's commands reflect His nature then it is impossible for God to will or command somethng that is contrary to His nature. Therefore God is the standard of rightness or justicel.

Notes from Class 2-11-09: Rebekah and Christin

In tonight’s class, we focused mainly on chapter five from Strike and Soltis; weaving in Appiah towards the end of class. Dr. Pope began by summarizing the two cases found in Strike and Soltis. The class consensus on these two cases was that evolution and Iroquois history should indeed be discussed, even if students have differing beliefs. Sharing ideas is at the core of education (marketplace of ideas). The point was made that some high school students cannot differentiate between knowing something for the test and adapting the idea into their beliefs. In light of this, is it harmful to the identity of the students?

Identity: What responsibility do teachers have vis a vie student identity?1. Cultivate? Case of Iroquois history: the idea was to promote positive self-worth. What parts of identity should we cultivate? Culture is a part of student identity. Is it our responsibility, as teachers, to cultivate the culture of students? Should ethnic cultural identity be cultivated 2. Neutral? Case of evolution: present facts and let students decide. Neutrality relates to our democratic society (choose your own identity). But by presenting options, are we really remaining neutral?
Truth:
· Modernism: Most of the history of western philosophy is based off of modernism. Modernists believe that Truth is independent of any particular perspective. The Truth is found through reason, which is innately an essential human quality. Thus every human is innately the same. As a species, humans are “pretty awesome.” We’ve made mistakes, but are forming rational societies. Consequentialism and non- consequentialism both hinge on Reason and modernist ideas about ethics.
· Postmodernism: Came about through twentieth century philosophical critiquing of modernism. Events like the Holocaust made people doubt that reason is an essential human quality. The mechanism of reason was used for evil. The only fundamental truth is that we are all very different. Narratives and dominant narratives. Culture has a dominant narrative. Those in POWER set a standard of that culture will accept as truth. “Truth” is a function of power. Truth is whatever the norms of culture are at any given time.Cultural Relativism. Truth is relative to an individual culture. Everything is relative. A modernist would claim that there is some empirically verifiable data, shaped by concepts and criteria. A postmodern example to rebut this: Kant’s time may be an empirically verifiable concept, but anthropologists have found cultures in which time is delineated. Concepts and theories do shape facts, but they are also bound by culture. The postmodernist asks the questions how can we all get along if we are all so different? Professor Pope suggested the book Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. Modernism has tried to be a grand narrative. Modernists come-back to the Postmodernists: Aren’t we all responsible to something bigger, like a universal Truth? Postmodernists say that there is no universal, independent truth. The postmodernist would say that the case of evolution vs. creationism would just be different people with different truths.

Culture, Subculture, Multiculturalism: Educational Options by Appiah: Argues against Separatism (i.e. African Americans should be taught African-American history only, while Hispanic Americans should be taught Hispanic American history only, etc.). Makes a clear distinction between culture and identity. U.S.’s dominant culture isn’t its national culture. Dominant culture is controlled by those who run government and business. This culture established what schools are like. Media + dominant culture →universal common culture (American cultural elements, like American Idol and baseball). Appiah argues that culture is a product of media.

Book Recommendation: Lies My Teacher Told Me

Teaching with Integrity 2/24/09

The case of Irene Canebrake and Angela Dormer reminded me of one of our first class lectures regarding the views of a Consequentialist versus a Non-Consequentialist. Ms. Canebrake takes the Consequentialist view on the matter because she simply states that her second grade students cannot learn fractions and their frustration has negatively affected their work in other areas. She states, "I am responsible for the education and the emotional welfare of these children." This statement makes it clear that Ms. Canebrake is more concerned with the well being of her students by not making them master material that was beyond their ability, although fractions were required in the curriculum. Angela Dormer is clearly a Non-Consequentialist. Although she understands where Ms. Canebrake is coming from, she still says she has a duty to enforce the district policy of teaching fractions in 2nd grade.

The question arises of which view equals teaching with integrity? Ms. Canebrake is an experienced teacher and uses her professional knowledge to decide that her students cannot be taught the curriculum of fractions at their age. Although she knows it is required by the district that she do so, she is more concerned with the well being of her students rather than a "rule" that is written on a piece of paper requiring her to teach a particular subject. Although she may not be following the rules, I believe she is taking responsibility for her classroom and students by knowing their abilities and standing up for what she believes in. It takes integrity for a person to speak against something they do not believe in, especially when it is required by your boss and your district.

To truly answer this question, I believe it depends on whether you view things as a Consequentialist or a Non-Consequentialist. Everybody has different views and opinions about particular matters. Parents want their children to be taught by knowledgeable and responsible teachers, and Ms. Canebrake took responsibility by knowing the capabilities of her students and speaking out in their defense.

Class reaction--2/17/09

Running a little late, yes, I know. But something did strike me from last class, I just didn't ever make the time to sit down and react to it as I'd like. Anyway.

I believe it was Brian who mentioned something about the teaching of creationism and evolutionary theories in classrooms. I'm not sure if he was saying this as an actual possible idea or simply to make a rather innocuous point, but as soon as he said this, I wanted to speak out. I thought better of it, however, when I realized the controversy that could stir and how deeply far off topic it could get us. Nonetheless, I go after the topic here.

I personally do not see how it is okay to teach students evolution and yet completely ignore the idea of creationism or even just the small hint of an idea that there is some greater power at work in the universe. Yes, I get it, most people who stand on the evolutionary pedestal cry out for evidence of the Biblical text and scream that their theories are more than simple theories, that they stand on the pillar of scientific fact and that those of us crazy enough to believe the Bible as fact are, well, crazy. But its ok for me to put that stuff into my children's heads at home, but not ok at school because, well, frankly, there's no science to back it up.

First of all, that's ludicrous. There's scientific evidence all over the place that confirms Biblical accounts. So if part of it can hold up scientifically, why wouldn't it be fair to at least admit that the rest of it could too? Also, you think I'm crazy, well, I think that these uber-intellectual, evolutionary theorists are wrong and I don't want my future kids exposed to this. So what would I be told? "Send your kids to a private school. Homeschool them." What if I can't afford it? I have the right to free, public education and should therefore have some right to say what I want my kids to learn. Now yes, I agree that just because they learn it in school does not mean I have to uphold it in my house, but what about those biology teachers who are so gung-ho about it, that they don't leave any room for theorizing and simply state evolution as fact?

All I'm asking for, I guess, is for the opportunity to teach all sides and then let parents and students discuss those two sides and decide together what they believe. And for teachers to leave their agendas at the front door.

the importance of being prepared as a teacher

“The public interest in education might be better served if teaching was recognized as a profession and if teachers had more autonomy in their work” (S&S). This is a statement that I could not agree with more. Good and effective teachers are those who are able to coordinate lessons with their students’ learning and abilities, incorporate current events and capitalize on “teachable moments”. It is a travesty that this is no longer a part of public education as teachers are bound to “teach to the test”.

The case of Irene Canebrake is one such instance in which the students suffer because of a mandated curriculum which forces to the teacher’s hand to move forward with the material despite the needs of the students. Even though the school board approved the curriculum, unless multiple second grade teachers with years of experience working with the age group were on the panel, I would argue that the teacher in this case does know what is best for her students. Canebrake did attempt to teach the recently approved curriculum and observed that her students were not mature enough or receptive to the new material. Perhaps it would have been to Canebrake’s advantage to approach the administrators immediately after noting the students’ inability to grasp the new material, rather than ignoring the curriculum and having the administrators approach her.

One point that the book notes that will serve us all well as teachers is to have a rationale to defend our decisions regarding why certain material is or is not taught in our classroom. As the book notes, the most effective manner for teachers to defend their opinions and actions is to do so with research and “professional” opinions which reinforce what the teacher is trying to achieve. I think that often teachers fail to procure rationale for their actions because not only does it take extra time and preparation, but sometimes teachers feel a sense of entitlement (especially the older teachers) and are insulted when their practices are questioned or their integrity is challenged.

in the news...

Recently in my hometown, the town’s Youth Advocate has come under scrutiny. This is a man who, for the past 24 years has seen children – mostly middle school and high school students through tremendously difficult times. He has provided counseling and served as a calming factor for students in the wake of deaths, suicides, car accidents, family difficulties – and even a stabbing death that occurred in the high school, in addition to helping students cope with the everyday issues of adolescence. He has served on committees, promoted awareness of all sorts and extolled altruistic values.

Money has been tight in town over the past couple of years, due in part to an accident that left a police officer paralyzed with the town responsible for the continuing medical bills. The problem is that instead of raising taxes to pay for the additional costs, the townspeople decided to take the money from the schools instead. This resulted in the closing and subsequent combining of elementary schools and laying-off teachers. During this time, the purpose of the youth advocate came into question -after all, if they laid him off, they could recoup his $68,000 a year salary – his job is still targeted for elimination due to budget cuts.

Fast forward to last week -controversy erupted when pictures from the youth advocate’s youth group’s trip to the beach were posted on his website. Mind you, waivers were signed by all children and parents to allow these pictures to be posted. Opponents of the youth advocate argue that the pictures are inappropriate, “the photographs depicted youths, all of them clothed, at the beach, participating in games and activities and showing off fake tattoos and striking model-like poses” (The Standard Times). Yet, the youth advocate defended the pictures stating, “The photos were always meant to promote a sense of belonging and community among the young people who attend our programs". The youth advocate was also criticized for having a nude picture of his one-year-old grandson on his blog, which he took down upon request.

Perhaps because I know this man, his daughters and his grandchildren I am more outraged by this than I should be. I have pictures of my kids in the bathtub on my facebook page – will I be accused of being inappropriate when I begin teaching? Is this better or worse than photos of teachers drinking? I cannot help but believe that this is just another attempt/excuse to fire a man to save some money. Thoughts?

Accommodating for Cultural Diversity

Last Wednesday we spent a good deal of the class time taking about cultural diversity within the teaching classroom of the public schools and whether or not we deemed it necessary. I thoroughly believe that it is essential for the cohesion of the class and to enforce the value of our country as a melting pot. Exposing our children to the value of cultural diversity is keeping our country’s history alive. We brought up examples of other opinions that vehemently disagree or are sitting on the fence as a way of not having to voice a direct opinion. In our schools today, there is a disproportionately below-average achievement rate for students of certain minority groups. Therefore, I can’t understand why disagreement still exists over including multicultural education in our present-day curriculums.

Rather than requiring individual in-depth cultural analyses by the teacher which is virtually impossible, multicultural education can be taught in a more simplistic way for early childhood education. A symbolic curriculum can be used. The children can make banners, posters or bulletin boards to accommodate cultural diversity. As a teacher, I will encourage my students to learn from this type of activity. It is my duty to clarify and explain inaccurate portrayals. Our children are exposed to a large volume of mass media that is not accurate and contains too stereotypes. Again, teachers should address these stereotypes as they might enter the classroom.

Cultural diversity can be accommodated into the classroom. Students can share their individual cultures with the class themselves. Parents and/or family members can be invited into the classroom to share their experiences and cultural differences. The class could have a multicultural day with food and clothing. For our young learners, accommodating cultural diversity will assist in giving the children both a feeling of increased satisfaction and appreciation of being human. A well-planned positive accommodating approach will allow the children to have a more logical understanding of the existence of ethnic diversity of not only our country but of the world. Educators cannot accommodate for cultural diversity alone. There are too many unique aspects of too many cultures. Therefore, teacher preparation programs should provide a clear understanding of students who are not from the United States. This is not possible for every ethnic group within our country; however, it could be focused upon the majority of ethnic groups for a specific locale.

Students can excel in a welcoming and diversity-accepting environment. The students will feel empowered with a classroom that supports diversity.

Student Identity and Multiculturalism

I found last night’s discussion regarding multiculturalism and the preservation of student identity to be enlightening. In the case of the biology teacher, he has an obligation to teach a unit on evolution. This is part of the criteria set forth by the standards of the state and his school. Since it has been brought to his attention by a student that she feels he is not being neutral, is he harming the identity of his Christian students by putting forth information that is counter to their core beliefs? Is a teacher obligated to present a counter theory or argument if he is teaching the facts? Before Wednesday night’s class, I thought no, he is doing his job by teaching the curriculum. After listening to other classmate’s reasons for why he should, I thought “okay, sure.” After thinking about this some more since class, I am unsure. I cannot help but think, “where does it end?”

However, I do think preserving student identity is important, but I do believe this needs to be a collaborative effort and not one that falls squarely on the shoulders of educators. As early elementary teachers, we should be conscious of the development of identity. The Strike and Soltis examples pertained to high school students who already had quasi-identities (as teenagers, they still have lots of developing to do.) We will be working with young, impressionable children with more pliable minds. Many young children believe things simply because “my teacher said so!” All the more reason to be sensitive to different cultures and groups and how we present material. What and how children learn are taught when they are young will shape their views and understanding of other cultures as they mature. Hopefully it will be in a way that embraces multiculturalism and allows for all groups to feel a part of the whole and not a small-minority apart from the dominate culture.

Other

Our class seemed to agree that addressing cultures in the classroom is important. As teachers we want for all students to feel comfortable, and we want to be able to give each student an equal educational experience. It is our responsibility as teachers to prepare students for participation in our democratic society, which represents many cultures.Therefore we must educate students in regards to other cultures so that we may create a stable and tolerant society for our diverse citizens to live in.
We all are educated and open minded individuals, and these ideals seem to be rational and attainable as we think about getting into the classroom. Although racism seems to be an issue of the past it is still prevelant throughout society, and will always be I imagine since we have freedom of speech. Someone somewhere will always disagree, and that is one of the advantages of living in a country with freedom, people can choose to agree and disagree based on their own judgements.
This brings me to my point, yesterday Attorney General Holder made a comment about the way our citizens have dealt with racism issues, stating that "United States is a nation of cowards" for not discussing the country's history openly. He states that there are still social limits in place, and that the social interaction among people of different races is "bleak" and that it in many ways does not "differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago." He added, "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about racial matters that continue to divide us."
Maybe I am just a dreamer, but I feel that our society is drastically different than it was fifty years ago as far as race issues are concerned. I do understand that not all citizens are as open minded as the citizens I have come in contact with in my years of higher education, but as far as I am concerned, as a majority we are an increasingly tolerant society. We may never be 100% tolerant, but I do not think it is as bleak as Mr. Holder declares it to be. Was just curious as to how everyone else feels about these statements, and how we as teachers can foster cultural tolerance and awareness among our students.
One last thought on multiculturalism, I heard a story this morning on the radio where a two year old boy from Bhubaneswar, India was married to a dog. The child grew a tooth on his upper gum, and their tribal lore says that this is a bad omen that the child will be likely to be attacked by wild animals, so the marriage was an attempt to appease the gods and keep him safe, protecting him from ghosts and bad luck. If you want to read the article go to BBC news and search Two-year-old Indian 'marries dog'.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7897098.stm
The information about Attorney General Holder's statements came from The Washington Post online, "Holder Urges Justice Dept. Workers to Discuss Race Openly", by Carrie Johnson,Thu. Feb 19, 2009 Page A02

Reaction Discussion 2/18/09 Early Childhood

Last night's discussion about teaching diversity in the classroom left some question as to how it applies to the early childhool classroom. We discussed the responsiblity of the teacher to address student identity. How can the teacher cultivate learning about culture? Is it important to student success? The other aspect of this was the teacher's obligation to remain neutral. The second issue we discussed is the concept of truth. I do believe that it is valuable for the early childhood teacher to have a perspective on these issues before entering the classroom. It will change how we teach and the success of our students.

Our masters program has an entire class centered around home/school/ and community. Every five year old enters kindergarten from homes with a variety of different backgrounds. As early childhood teachers we can not effectively teach our children without an awareness of the homes, and research shows that parental involvement is a key toward student success. As a result, early childhood teachers must be prepared to include the study of diversity. Our children need to feel that the school classrooom is a safe place. Activities such as the "all about me" bulletin boards where students share their unique family cultural backgrounds is a good place to start. A sample of the multicultural community is often right before us in the classroom. The teacher must not pass judgement on these homes. I would try to remain neutral unless a student put down another's home. The American respect for the individual is something that would be expected.

The other aspect we discussed in depth was the definition of truth. The Modernist believe that there is a truth. Men are rational, reasonable human beings with more similarities than differences. The Postmodern view is that cultures are fundamentally different. Truth is therefore relative and diverse. As an early childhood teacher, I believe my major concern is to encourage the child to enjoy the learning and exploration for truth that begins at this age and last a lifetime. It was good for me to explore these perspectives in order to understand myself as a teacher. I am a modernist. I believe that human beings basically share the same physical, emotional and cognitive needs. There are differences, but there are more similarities. The horrors of the last century are exceptions that must be studied and understood. These atrocities should not change a whole mode of negative, futile thinking. I choose to believe that society would be better served to try to understand what made the craziness of the world wars cause man to be so unreasonable, against his nature. As a result I believe that there is truth, we just have to find it. The journey is great! With this perspective I hope to instill in my students an enthusiasm for life and learning that will prepare them for educational and life's challenges.

Where does Teaching Methodology fit into discussion? And, the Obama Effect.

One of the main issues discussed last night was how to handle students who dispute important, well-known facts. The most recurring example, brought up by Dr. Pope, was the student who disputes the 6 million person death toll from the Holocaust. It seemed that as a class, we decided that the best approach to this situation is offering the child some reading or talking to them one-on-one in order to stick to the lesson plan and not waste time on a well known fact. I'm glad our class agreed on a respectful, guiding approach to this question. Similar comments were made about teaching or discussing the theory of evolution. My question is , where does our "mutual respect" approach fit on the spectrum of Teaching Methodology? I've heard the term "methodology" mentioned loosely in other classes, but I'm not familiar with the different styles/categories of instruction. Where could I learn more about this?

To switch gears now, I was also glad to hear Mandy defend the idea of single-gender classrooms with research that shows children performing better in those settings. I offered some research, as well, on the Obama Effect. One thing that such research suggests is that when comfortable in their setting, people can develop more "positive self-talk" techniques. The theory is that our performance on a test is affected by a "vibe" that we get from the environment in which we are tested and./or have been trained in. Does this sound like a reliable claim or just a weird, unsubstantiated coincidence? If you're interested in this topic, I suggest listening to this podcast produced by Radio Lab, a show broadcast on public radio in New York:

http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/01/27/the-obama-effect-perhaps/

(Most of their shows are an hour long, but this one is only about 10 minutes. If you like their stuff, you can get their free podcasts every two weeks from iTunes. They offer many interesting topics to choose from. The broadcast from 11/28/08 is about race which is relevant to our discussion this week as well.)

So, if the Obama Effect were to be tested and supported overall, how would it change our notion of teaching multiculturalism? Would it support the idea of celebrating diversity or would it challenge us to invision a more mentally homogenous culture?

The Myths of Learning Disabilities

This article brings up some very interesting points in differentiating between students with learning disabilities and “slow learners”. While many of the points are valid throughout the article, one is quite striking to me. The idea of the “the clear incentive to acquire the entitlement ticket” in regards to obtaining an LD diagnosis is objectionable.

The trade-off between receiving more time and resources for schoolwork and having the LD stigma attached has far-reaching repercussions. Once a child is labeled as LD, there will be a stigma attached of being an LD student for the duration of their schooling and perhaps beyond. Highly-trained professionals diagnose new disorders at an alarming rate and the trend seems to be continuing into the 21st century. This article was written in 1996 and so much has changed. These very professionals are putting their reputations on the line with every diagnosis. The emergence of ADHD and autism has a hold on parents but I do not believe that they are looking for the entitlement ticket. They are looking for the cause of a specific type of behavior problem or inability to perform certain functions. The parents are seeking help so that their child can be successful in the classroom and later on down the road when they reach adulthood. But maybe they just want accommodations for their son or daughter to complete activities?

The slow learner may not qualify for additional help as a result of convoluted discrepancies and that is truly unfortunate. There are still resources available to that student if the family is proactive and responsive to his or her additional needs. In either scenario, the parents need to recognize that something may be wrong and seek additional resources through the school or the community.

The idea of buying an “entitlement ticket” is disturbing but maybe I am just naïve?

Student Identity- News Update

When I came home tonight, I got on CNN.com and began to catch up on the day's news. Interestingly enough, I ran across an article entitled "Beheaded Woman's Sister: I might have heard the deadly confrontation." At a first glance, this article does not provide anything about our class tonight, but as I read the article, it deals with exactly what we discussed with student identity and the importance of being confirmed.

The article deals with a Muslim couple who came to the US 25 years ago and the husband became a successful banker. When the wife became pregnant in 2004, the couple became worried about the negative American perception of Muslims. As the article reads:

"Speaking in December 2004, Hassan said his wife, then pregnant, was worried about that perception and "felt there should be an American Muslim media where her kids could grow up feeling really strong about their identity as an American Muslim."
Bridges TV began as a television network for Muslim-Americans, aimed at overcoming the negative stereotypes associated with the religion."There should be a Muslim media," Muzzammil Hassan told VOA, "so that Muslim children growing up in America grow up with the self-confidence and high self-esteem about their identity both as Americans and as Muslims."

This couple who is not from America needed their identities to be confirmed, even as adults, and expected the same for their children. The Hassans knew that their identities as American Muslims were not being confirmed in the media, nor in the school system, and decided that there needed to be something done. This is a real life example of what we talked about in class tonight, and the importance of a person's identity in relation to their culture and religion.

Class Reaction: 2.17.09

I feel that tonight’s class was pretty interesting in seeing the different views and experiences depending on what part of the country you were raised in. During the lecture, the question was raised about whether or not a teacher’s opinion should be included while teaching their students. I think that generally we all agreed that a teacher’s opinion should not come in to play when teaching their students, especially when it involves a subject such as Evolution where many people may view it differently. I also agreed with the idea that it is a teacher’s responsibility to present the different ideas and beliefs about those subjects and it is up to the student to form their own opinion, without the persuasion of their teacher. I do not feel that the Theory of Evolution should be taken out of the curriculum, but that it should be taught as what it is, a theory. It should not be viewed as the correct answer to how humans were developed/created. Who honestly knows what the correct answer to that question is? When I was in school I learned about several different theories including Evolution and Creationism. I feel that if it is taught correctly, meaning in an unbiased way, students should learn all of the theories that are available and form their own opinion.

This also coincides with learning about different cultures. We are taught about all of the different cultures in the world and their history. That does not mean that we have to agree with what they do or what they believe in. We learn about them and respect the idea that culture is relative. What is considered right or good in our own culture may not be accepted in theirs, and vice versa. It is still important to know how the rest of the world lives and understand the reasons for our differences.

Law Presentation Dates

Section 1:
2/24: Groups 2 (student freedom of expression), 4 (personal freedom for teachers), 5 (religious freedom), and 6 (personal appearance)
3/3: Groups 1 (sex discrimination), 3 (sexual orientation), 7 (due process) and 8 (rights of students with disabilities)

Section 2:
2/25: Group 1 (teacher tenure), 2 (child abuse) 4 (personal freedom for teachers), 5 (rights for students with disabilities).
3/4: Groups 3 (personal freedom for teachers), 6 (copyright), 7 (religious freedom), 8 (freedom of expression for teachers)

Multiculturalism- Reading Reaction

I found the readings for tonight's class to be very interesting concerning multiculturalism and the way to approach teaching in the classroom. On the one hand, people's beliefs and identities are so ingrained in their culture and religion that sometimes teaching an alternative view proves to be offensive. At the same time, not everyone's culture and religion aligns, and where does this leave the teacher and her curriculum? I find this problem to especially echo to me as an English teacher because of the censorship revolving around books being taught in the classroom. Many of the novels that are banned contain images, language, and scenarios that conflict with a certain culture or religion. While my personal beliefs and religion are very important to me, I find tolerance and education to be more important than ignorance.

A comical example that I have of cultural misconceptions is teaching English to African students who have never been to America. Their perception of American culture is gleaned from newspapers and television (if they have the privilege), as well as their text books. When I first started teaching in the classroom, my students would ask me if I knew Jean Claude Van Damme or Beyonce. "How ridiculous," I thought to myself. "Don't they know how big America is and how many people there are?" However, their cultural education had not presented them with the correct information. Another thing that the students thought is that EVERY American is rich, and that if they could get to America, they would be rich and their problems would be gone. I will acknowledge that African education has much to be desired, but reminded me vaguely of the importance of addressing multiculturalism.

Education should be able to transcend the individual so that they can become more knowledgable. Schools should be able to provide an unbiased cultural education that allows students to learn and be able to live in tolerance of people who believe and live differently than they do. Whether this is done in a literature, science, social studies class is not of importance. I think that cultural education should also extend to different countries because most Americans have come from other countries at some point in their geneology.

People should be able to hold on to their beliefs and values while simulataneously acknowledging others, whether inside or outside of the classroom. It is a teacher's responsibility to educate an individual to become a participant in a democratic society, which is made up of a blend of cultures and religions, and to prescribe to the governing body of that society. Teaching ideas/theories from various beliefs, disciplines, and religions should not be a thing to be feared or abstained from, but rather embraced for the knowledge and understanding that it provides.

Other- Hailey Hughes

While reading Chapter 5, I made a connection with my Sociology class that I currently teach. Sociology is a social science that studies groups of people, and culture is an important topic that is covered in my class. I asked the question if it is possible to be "100% American"? Several students nodded and agreed that this concept was possible. However, their opinions changed after reading an article from their Sociology textbook. The article was titled "The 100-Percent American?" It began with asking have you ever thought about how much of American culture was borrowed from other cultures, both past and present? Anthropologist Ralph Linton explored this question in a humorous way in the 1930s. For example, he explained how the American citizen awakes in a bed built on a pattern which originated in the Near East but which was modified in northern Europe before it was transmitted to America. Then, the American citizen throws back covers made from cotton, domesticated in India, or linen, domesticated in the Near East, or wool from sheep, also domesticated in the Near East, or silk, the use of which was discovered in China. The story moves on to a restaurant, which he eats his orange from the eastern Mediterranean, a cantaloupe from Persia, and a piece of African watermelon. At the end of the essay, Linton writes about how the "100% American" reads the news of the day, imprinted in characters invented by the ancient Semites upon a material invented in China by a process invented in Germany. As he absorbs the accounts of foreign troubles he will, if he is a good conservative citizen, thank a Hebrew deity in an Indo-Euroean language that is 100 percent American.
I think that we are guilty as Americans to be ethnocentric about our culture. However, if you looked at the tag of your shirt at this very moment, I guarantee that it was made from a different country. We need to take into consideration that even though we may have different languages, religion, and lifetyles around the world, we are are still connected. As Strike and Soltis mentioned in Chapter 6, we need to respect the right to choose, and not the adequacy of the choice.

Reading analysis- Hailey Hughes

After reading Chapter 5 from "The Ethics from Teaching", I discovered several interesting concepts. The discussion of evolution in a public school setting is a controversial topic. Is it fair for students to be exposed to evolution with a Creationist account of human origins? Is it a crime to tell the truth? Another controversial concept introduced in Chapter 5 consisted of the Iroquois Confederation. Should the school include lessons that teach the student body about the Iroquois culture? Is it fair to see this group as a different culture, or should we think of them as Americans? Basically, Strike and Soltis narrowed these ideas into two questions: 1) Do schools have a right to teach ideas that are inconsistent with peoples' religious views? and, 2) Should schools work to create a shared American culture? Or should they try to respect each culture equally? (Pg. 75). It is important to take into consideration the different backgrounds of others , including their culture or religion. However, should we as Americans respect other cultures as equal value? As Americans, I feel that we are guilty of ethnocentric ideas, which creates a superior feeling against the other cultures in this country. As educators, however, we need to place these feelings aside and treat all students, regardless of their ethnicity, as equals.
I think that it is important to point out the views of the consequentialists and the nonconsequentialists. The nonconsequentialists believe that we need to respect peoples' choices. It is important to equally respect all cultures or religions. We don't have to agree with the religion, but we should respect their right to choose. Consequentialists, however, focus more on the consequences of actions rather than respecting personal choice.
Again, as educators, it is important for us to be as nonbiased as possible. Differences in culture should not impact the treatment or outlook of the student. Our job is not to judge, but to be an effective teacher for all students, regardless of their differences.

Class Reaction

I have been thinking about maximization, equalization and meritocracy and the fact that they each have positive aspects, but each can be taken to extremes that seem unreasonable. I was thinking about how to take the ideal qualities of each and incorporate them into a policy that would benefit the citizens of our country. In a way, that is what our policy makers have tried to do, attempting to maximize citizen’s life chances by providing an education that gives the basis of knowledge to participate in our society, making an effort to bring all students up to a certain level of standards (NCLB), and assisting citizens in furthering their educations through institutions of higher learning. As there are issues with each of the three educational policy theories that Gutmann discussed, there are issues with the policies that have been established in our country. It seems that we have not successfully maximized citizen’s life chances by only giving them the basic knowledge to function in society. Our efforts to bring children up to a consistent higher level (NCLB) have weakened schools by taking away funding and in some aspects seem to have widened “the gap”. Although states help fund students to go to college, there are still many students who have natural abilities and motivation and cannot receive adequate assistance in order to attend institutions of higher education. I understand that it may be impossible to provide a “maximum life chance” to all citizens, and it may be unfair to only further the education of the lower level or the higher level students, but I am not convinced that a compromise is impossible to reach.
That is when I read several articles related to an alternative approach to education, the Reggio Emilia approach, initiated by a small town in northern Italy. After World War II the first institution the town rebuilt was its preschool. The community is directly involved with the education of their young children, and they help to support the preschools. Since 1963 many early childhood education systems like this were opened, due in part to state funding. I was not able to find specific information on the nature of the funding. The essential concepts are: “These schools are part of a public system that strives to serve both the child’s welfare and the social needs of the families, while supporting the child’s fundamental right to grow and learn in a favorable environment with peers and with caring professional adults.” (Koenig 18)

Some of the basic philosophies of these preschools are:

*Children are strong and capable beings.
*There is emphasis on the social constructivist theory that says we form ourselves through our interactions with those things around us.
*Children’s intellectual development is fostered through many different hands on stimulating activities.
*The design of the classroom environment is used to provoke student’s communication and interaction.
*Teacher is seen as partner, nurturer and educational guide to the student, the teacher is also constantly researching to find better ways to facilitate and encourage student learning, and documents the stages of students in order to better understand and support them.
*Parent is seen as partner in their child’s learning experience.

I find this approach to early education very holistic. I feel that it incorporates some of the positive ideals proposed in maximization, equalization and meritocracy. The state is providing adequate funding to these preschools, and the educators are maximizing the student’s potential future life chances. By allowing students to develop their communication skills, problem solving skills, and a general interest in learning, students will have the foundation necessary to further their education. Without discriminating these schools also provide an environment where students with special needs and gifted students can flourish. Their special needs students are referred to as special rights students, and they are able to work at their own pace right along with the other students. In this same manner, gifted students work on their own projects at their own pace.
Although the Reggio Emilia concept is developed towards fostering early childhood growth, and has an emphasis on the creation of art, I feel that our public education institutions could benefit from aspects of their philosophy.

If you’re interested in reading more about this, a good website I found is:
http://zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/index.htm



Koenig, Donna, and Davilla Koenig and Susan Koenig. “Bringing the Reggio Concept to
American Educators.” Art Education July 1998: 18-25.

Made a Mistake!

Oops...I put the wrong date on the post below...

It was for the Wed Night Class...the 11th!

Sorry!

Notes For Tuesday Feb 10th Class

Posted by Stacy Woods and Janna Martin

The principle problem brought about in today’s readings is how we ought to distribute education resources (i.e. money, time and attention). This is a problem that occurs at various levels. At the highest level, that of the legislature, one has to determine how to distribute tax dollars. At the district level, one has to assign pools of money to different schools. At the school level, it becomes a monetary and time issue. At the classroom level, it determines how a teacher will divide his/her attention and time with the students. In all contexts the resources are limited so we become concerned on how to distribute these resources fairly. Limited resources makes distribution more problematic, for time and money are not infinite. However, in a democracy one wants to distribute resources fairly. In what manner can this be obtained?

Interpreting Equal Educational Opportunity

Amy Gutmann lays out the three most common ways to determine how to distribute education resources. The first method is maximization. In this method the education resources should be distributed to maximize the life chances of everyone. We live in a liberal society based on equality and equality of opportunity. Thus everyone should have the right to choose what kind of life they want and schools should make no bias on one’s choice. However, this method is vague and allows the possibility of devoting resources where they may not be utilized. According to Gutmann, maximization suffers from the moral ransom as well. Maximizing everyone’s life chances require the sacrifice of everything else that is valuable in society. In maximization education is the most important thus all resources are devoted to education neglecting all other areas such as parks, libraries, police officers, etc. Maximization also does not allow us to draw lines and determine when resources are being underutilized. Gutmann concurs that society should not use the maximization method because education absorbs all the resources and as a liberal society one cannot prioritize one to the exclusion of everything else.

The second method Gutmann discuss is equalization. In this method the education resources would go to aid the least advantaged (those with the least life chances) and would continue to receive these resources until they are equal with everyone else. The ideas of this method derive from John Rawls, who stated inequality is permissible if those resources of go to those the least well off. In a sense, those who need the resources get the resources until they reach the highest advantaged. However, the flaw with this method is it sets an unattainable goal by its own criteria. There will always be the low advantaged because external resources are available to the high advantaged to maintain their position.

The third method Gutmann explores is meritocracy, the dominant ideology for most of the nation’s educational system. In this method Gutmann acknowledges the differences that happen and states they will continue to happen due to effort and ability. Therefore, resources should go to those who will benefit the most from them because they will be able to do the most with them by contributing the most to society. However, Gutmann recognizes this method is also unacceptable in a democracy. Effort and Ability according to Gutmann are accidental and not relevant criteria to take into consideration for allocating resources. As a result Gutmann rejects all three methods and develops the democratic standard. This method contains two key principles to distribute resources. The first part is the democratic threshold principle, where everyone gets enough resources to fully participate in the democratic process. The thought process is that at the school level everyone should know how to read. As more become educated and better educated the threshold rises thus requiring more education to meet the threshold in the future. Although rather vague on other components the threshold should entail other than literacy, the threshold is essential to the second portion of the plan, democratic authorization. Democratic authorization principle refers to anything after the threshold decided by us democratically. Since it will be a democratic decision it is extremely important that we have as many educated people as possible, this is what makes the democratic threshold essential to the plan.

Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?

Christopher Jencks stated that in a democracy we default to treating everyone the same so need justification for treating others differently. Jencks explores various justifications and declines all of them concluding we should all just be treated equally.

Freedom of Speech

Within in Strike and Soltis the question arises how does one handle the issue of free speech within the classroom? From the story read in the article many views on how to assist Mr. Lane in his decision to publish or censor Eddie’s article develop. The first view point is that of the consequentialist, specifically John Stuart Mill who states “the marketplace of ideas” benefits society and is the manner in which truth is determined. He felt as ideas are considered, views are tested and learning occurs resulting in personal growth. If ideas are censored, people are denied their right to make decisions and therefore their personal growth is also denied. Mill goes on to also discuss the need to protect children from the consequences of their own actions. The second view to consider is that of the nonconsequentialist. They view the person as a moral agent who believes they are responsible for what they do and capable of making responsible decisions. However, nonconsequentialists take in consideration the possibility of impaired judgment and acknowledge moral agents would want interference in the case their judgment is impaired. In conclusion, in the case of free speech consequentialists see education as benefiting the greater good. Nonconsequentialists see education essential to moral competency.

Notes for Tuesday, Feb. 10

Class on Tuesday, began with the discussion on Gutmann. The selections in our book are from her book Democratic Education, from the late 1980s, which tries to define what democratic education means and would look like at the level of policy, not necessarily the classroom; and how educational resources ought to be divided up in way that makes education democratic. During the first half of class we discussed maximization, equalization, and meritocracy.

Gutmann’s 3 Ways to talk about the purposes of education, each represents a different set of priorities of allocating resources (time, money, attention)1) maximization
2) equalization
3) meritocracy

Maximization: all about maximizing life chances
-claims that a democratic state should devote as many resources as possible to maximize a child’s life chances
-there are no assumptions of what the child is like or should be like
-allows individuals to maximize their freedom; whatever the child wants to do, they should be able to do and it’s the government’s job to help you (as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone)

What should schools do? Help you to be whatever you want to be
Example: The state should do everything they can to make Dr. Pope an astronaut and if he is not good with math, the state should keep helping him.

Problems with maximization: practically, democratically, theoretically problematic
-moral ransom-the idea of maximizing life chances is inexhaustible; it is hard to tell if and when someone has maximized their life chance
-huge commitment and obligation for the state
-Gutmann says this is “not correct” (p. 237) practical problem of finite resources: there are other things the state should be doing (making sure the community is a pleasant place to live)
Examples: Dr. Pope and his wife can arrange their lives so their daughter can do whatever she wants, but they must sacrifice other important things. By moving close to the grandparents, his daughter would have a babysitter; however he would be sacrificing his career.

Equalization: leveling the playing field
-use education to raise the level of least advantaged people to the level of most advantaged people
-not everyone has chances because of their circumstances
- John Rawls says that in our society there will be inequalities, but every now and then they should be arranged to help the least advantaged
-rationale: things that affect our life chances are simply accidents of birth; this matters a lot so those who need it are compensated
-argument that higher achieving students do not need resources because they are already doing well
-those less advantaged should not be denied by the circumstances of their birth (similar to NCLB)

What should schools do? Raise the life chances of those less advantaged by giving them more educational resources until they are at the level of the advantaged.
Example: Don’t spend anymore money on GT programs until everyone is at the same level

Problems:
-may violate autonomy-the ability for families to decide for themselves; intrude into the lives of families by getting into their business
-practically, this sort of equality is very difficult to reach—when is it going to happen? How will it be measured? How many resources would be needed?
-the drive to make everyone equal, the idea of equalization fails to acknowledge that people are different
-circumstantial problems: how do you get the student to care if the family doesn’t?

Meritocracy: based on merit
-we should give the most resources to those who are going to benefit from them the most, to those who show ability, aptitude, desire, and talent because they will eventually provide the most benefit to society
-consequentionalist/utilitarian aspects

Problems:
-talent, desire, etc. seem to be partially accidental, based on their environment which does not seem to be particularly fair or just
-like to think we don’t reward people who are lucky

Threshold debate: Gutmann says there needs to be a way in which everyone ought to be educated, thus there is the democratic threshold principle. She says that everyone needs to be brought up so that they can participate meaningfully in the democratic process and all resources must go to making sure everyone gets there.

Problems:
-how do we divide the resources
-if we give focus to the threshold, where ought education fit relative to other public goods?
-who decides the threshold? Is it just literacy? Is there a standard threshold that can be defined that people 100 years ago, today, and 100 years from now can go by?
Example: All people had to do in order to participate in a democratic society was read, but today we need to be literate, synthesize bits of information, critically analyze the source, and be technologically proficient.
-Gutmann is too narrow in her definition of a threshold


The second half of class was devoted to a mock trial from the example in the Ethics of Teaching on page 47, the banning of the books. We split into 4 groups: parents, teacher/librarians, administration, and students. Each group presented the feelings and reactions that were given in the example.

Parents: did not feel the material was age appropriate for junior high school students; the students’ maturity level is questionable and they might take fiction for reality; the parents have gone to great lengths to shield their children from these sorts of topics and do not want them to be able to access this material so easily.
Teachers/Librarians: “footloose” defense; these books are pieces of great American literature; cannot deprive every student just because a select few do not like them; the computer system is capable of censoring inappropriate books
Administrators: believe the compromise is fair which allows some control over what kids read; to put the books out altogether would be a detriment to their overall education
Students: believe it will potentially lower their GPA by being taken out of class; they can learn these things on the street, on T.V., by their friends

Conclusions:
-it is the parents job to discuss these issues with their children
-should schools have some responsibility to help filter, manage, or control it?
-Mill’s argument: 1-minority opinion may be true, 2-minority opinion may be false, then the truth remains vigorous, 3-truth lies in between

What about the other case? Pg.35, Mr. Lane publishing Eddie’s story
-this is a different kind of freedom of speech
-problematic because by refusing to publish the story, it could do harm to the kid who wrote it because he would think there is another teacher who hates him. However, this is how great art gets made because “good art is good art even if it bothers people”
-the teacher is upholding journalistic integrities because the newspaper reflects the school
-seems to be built around maturity as well-the student might be unable to see or understand the consequences


The last few minutes of class we briefly discussed the case with Paul and Tim. We can say that the teacher has exhausted all other possible resources and separating the two kids is the absolute only way to solve the problem, so which kid is sacrificed? What decisions make our ethical conscience?

Compiled by Liz M. and Melissa B.

What Makes A "Good Parent"

I was glad when I read that Christopher Jencks would be using Ms. Higgins in an elementary classroom as his model on philosophies of equal educational opportunity. Finally, an example that I can completely relate to as an early childhood education student.

Although I understood much of the article, there are some things I found troubling. For instance, at the end of page 245, where Jencks is describing the weak variant of human justice, he says “If a student has incompetent parents… most advocates of humane justice see the home at least in part as an educational environment, most feel that Ms. Higgins owes children extra help if their parents are unable to do as much for them as a good parent should.” I think that students who don’t get the help they need at home should be given extra attention by their teacher. But what bothered me is the definition of “good parent.” Whether Jencks is asserting his own definition of a “good parent” or whether he is asserting humane justice supporters’ definition is unclear. If a parent is “incompetent,” does that mean that they’re not a good parent? According to this definition, a good parent is one who aids their child in her educational pursuits, or academics. So does that mean that an incompetent parent does not help their child academically, or that a parent who doesn’t help their child is incompetent? Surely this isn’t what Jencks meant. Surely he knows that there are some parents who work two or three jobs to put food on the table and never see their children for more than minutes at a time. Are those parents incompetent because they do not help their children with their homework? If so, the only “good parents” are the ones who have time to spend helping their children.

The section on Humane Justice and Socioeconomic Inequality was another section that I found troubling. Jencks says that although “most liberals seem to assume that children from different socioeconomic backgrounds are genetically indistinguishable…logic suggests that a child’s genes must have some influence on his or her adult socioeconomic position,” and “adults in different socioeconomic positions must differ genetically. It follows that their children must differ genetically.” So Jencks is saying that genes affect academic achievement, which affects socioeconomic position, so genes must affect socioeconomic position. Jencks’ logic here seems faulty to me. If genes to indeed affect socioeconomic position, then it sounds like Jencks predestines some students for failure as adults.

Jencks was directly involved with the research that he uses to support this idea and gives only one other article that supports this thought. And the research is all from the late 1970s. We’ve come a long way, baby, in genetic research since the late 1970s. Perhaps Jencks, who is currently a professor of social policy at Harvard Kennedy School of Government, knew what he was talking about. But he didn’t explain it convincingly enough for me to buy it.

Whom Must We Treat Equally?

I found the reasons put forth in Whom Must We Treat Equally interesting. This reading made me think of something my sister would tell her children. When one child would be upset that a sibling received something they did not receive, my sister’s response was “not everyone gets the same thing, but everyone gets what they need.” In retrospect, I can see where this comes in to play in the educational setting. Treating children equally does not mean giving them the same exact things such as the teachers’ time and attention. Treating children equally is more of giving every child what they need when they need it. How to give every child what they need is more of the dilemma. Each child has to be treated as an individual, what works for one child may not work for another child.

None of the theories offered by Jencks would work for someone all the time. It would be hard for me to state that I believe in democratic equality or utilitarianism. It all depends on the situation or circumstances. Most children do not have a lot of control over what causes their lot in life be it nature or nurture. Why would a child who was born with a genetic defect be any more or less deserving of special help or extra assistance than a child from a neglectful home?

I do believe the moralistic theory of justice would not work for young children. Since this is the age group I will be teaching, I would not feel that it would be morally acceptable for me to deem that a child was not putting forth the effort, so I would no longer “waste my time” on that child. It will be my obligation to find out why the child was not working and what I could do to rectify the situation. However, I am an adult student in ECED600. If Dr. Pope determines that I am not putting forth effort – it appears that I am not reading the material because I do not participate in class discussions, I do not make blog posts, I miss class regularly, etc. He is not obligated to find out why. It is acceptable for him to wash his hands of me. (Of course, I am not implying that Dr. Pope would ever do this.)

Ethics

I would like to comment on the case of Ms. Jones and Johnnie that we discussed last week. We mostly agreed that we would consider it OK to "lie" in order to protect a child. As teachers, we will be faced with seeing children who have been abused. My undergraduate degree is in Social Work. I worked for DSS for 2 years. I had 30 cases with several children in each case. I had to see each child once a month. It was a real shock when I began working at DSS to see how some people live, and the fact that so many children are abused. There is alot of abuse in our society. We will see children with bruises and deal with parents that we know are abusing their child or children. Our job as the teacher is to report it to proper people and let them handle it. This would prevent the teacher from being involved in the situation, as far as the parents know. As teachers, we will see many situations that will be heart breaking. I do not think their is a right or wrong answer when it comes to ethics, because everyone has their own opinions and beliefs.

Reading Analysis – Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?

I believe that equality is vital in education, but how do we define equality? I look at the way I treat my own children who are two and five years old. I definitely do not treat them equally nor do I try to in most situations. When my five year old wakes up in the middle of the night, I tell him he has to go back to bed. However, I will usually rock my two year old for a few minutes until she calms down. The difference is age. If I buy a gift for one, I do not make it a priority to find one for the other. Sometimes the five year old gets the gift and sometimes the two year old does. I believe it all balances out in the end. That does not mean that I do not try to treat them fairly based on the situation.

When it comes to dividing my time among them, I definitely struggle. It is easy and enjoyable to take the moralistic justice approach and spend the time with the one who is eager to learn. Sometimes I am forced to take the humane justice approach because my two year old is more dependent on me helping her. I often feel like I am shortchanging my five year old, because the time is not divided evenly as in the democratic equality approach. I believe in a classroom it will be hard because of the number of students that need your time.

I feel for Ms. Higgins and her struggle to decide who to spend her time with (Jencks). Instead of deciding on a theory that fits all, I believe she should take each day and situation separately to decide who should have her attention. Surely by the end of the school year she will be able to give each student the attention they need when they truly need it. Sometimes it will be the disadvantaged child who clearly needs help. Other times it will be the child who is eager and needs guidance to get to the next level. If we use all of the theories Jencks writes about educational opportunity will be equal.

Reaction: Interpreting Equal Educational Opportunity

In class we discussed the chapter on Amy Gutmann's interpretation of how we can divide our resources in education. The three ways to divide the resources are all so extreme and I believe that not one of them alone is the right answer. With maximization, I think it would be great to be able to devote more resources to education so that we maximize our children's life chances but not at the expense of other things that we need such as recreational areas and police protection. Also, who decides when enough is enough? There has to be limitations. With equalization, the students that are the least advantaged are definitely the receivers here and I don't believe this is fair. In a perfect world it would be great to be able to bring everybody up to the same level but to forget about the ones that are already there and not to challenge them could be devastating to their educational experience. And really, not every student wants to excel all the time. How many students really and truly care about their education at all? Two? A handful? I think NCLB falls under equalization and the concept behind it is good but the way it's been implemented thus far is not so good from what I've seen and heard from some friends that are teachers. Currently a lot of the resources are being allocated to making sure all students pass these tests basically so the schools don't look bad and lose their funding. The idea of meritocracy is good I think, probably the best in my opinion out of the three. I realize that there needs to be a threshold set that every student must reach but then after that I think it's fine to allocate resources to the programs like the gifted and talented. I think any student that has the enthusiasm and willingness to learn regardless of their background or "luck" or lack there of, can be a part of these programs. I know some people are just gifted and others have to work at it. But I don't think meritocracy is saying don't allocate any resources to those not as talented or gifted. I think it's just saying to provide an adequate education for all and then give a little more to those that want it.
I don't recall Gutmann ever giving a definite answer on what the threshold is. I know in class it was mentioned that she said something about literacy being the threshold but I think this is just a part of it. At one point Gutmann says that everybody must have the ability to participate effectively in the democratic processes and that literacy is part of the minimum requirements but more than the minimum is demanded. So I don't think she is saying the threshold is literacy by itself. I took that whole part to mean that in order to participate effectively, yes, you have to be able to read but you also have to be able to understand and make some meaning of what you are reading. The point is to educate students to be functional citizens who actively participate in all democratic processes.

Reading Analysis

It's obvious that every student, in theory, should be equally educated in our public school systems and it's also obvious that there are different conceptions of what equal education consist of in practicality. Through the readings and discussions I can also come to see that any decision or plan of action to work toward this equality is not without flaw. The text uses reference to teacher as a situation for explanation of this topic, however I don't believe that this is the main area of concern, the teachers that is. Of course there are good and not so good educators with drastically different teaching methods within our public schools but I see it, as Matthew Arnold's burden of teaching was, the organization of our Elementary, Secondary, and Superior Education, as the underling problem. Also the training of our educators and the standards to which we should hold them. We may distinguish between different schools of thought and whether or not we stand democratic, moralistic, humanely, or utilitarian on how we will allocate our time to our pupils but this won't bring a absolute answer because there is not one that will work for every situation. In this sense there has to be a composite approach, which could benefit from slightly better organization from the top. Culture and Education will never stand in one place thus our organization of this, our standards, and practices cannot.

Reading Analysis-Culture, Subculture, Multiculturalism: Education Options

I must say that this reading got me pretty fired up even before I finished it. And most of that was simply because there is something about this author that rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure if its his overly complicated sentences or the air of elitism I get from Mr. K. Anthony Appiah, but something just wasn't working for me. Granted, I'll allow that this puts a certain amount of bias towards both the author and the article, but I think its an important part of the analysis. That being said, I'm not exactly sure what it is that Appiah is trying to get at here. I mean, on the most basic of levels it makes perfect sense to say that America does not have one culture, but why must it be a major point of contrition for this guy? I understand that as teachers we are expected to treat each child with the same level of respect and dignity, avoiding favoritism or worse, flat out racism, but I do not understand why that point (which is a good one) requires such a lengthy argument (at least half the article) on the country's lack of cultural singularity.

One thing that I do like here is that he both recognizes our multiculturalism and basically says that in our country, that is the only way we as a country can continue. To insist upon a single culture is to "require...the institutions to carry the same meaning for all of us." Diversity has long been a strength of our country. Have we always been successful in our integration? Obviously not, but it is a part of us and something that, at least in part, we as a nation are getting increasingly better at.

Reaction to Whom Must We Treat Equallfy for Educ.

After reading the analysis of Ms. Higgins possiblities to determining how to divide her time and attention in a waythat allows for equal educational opportunity, I decided on which method I used and questioned the method proposed. As a director of choirs for elementary aged children I used the Utlitaranism approach. The method of using time and attention as the criteria for equality was something I have never examined. The goal was always the performance of a quality piece of music. This is a goal that I am passionate about. I have never had any trouble motivating my students to want this as a great prize. I wonder if Ms. Higgins had used the achievment of the goal, academic standards, as the prize if time and attention would just fall into place.

I use the ulitarianism approach. Each individual is valued as an important member of our team. The goal is that the group provides an outstand performance. I do award special parts based on an audition and a complete schedule of work. In that since, the prize parts are available to all, but performance is the predictor of soloes or special parts. In that sense I do act as a judge. Most of the time I am more of a coach than a judge. In over ten years of working with children, I know that there are always a few gifted children, a few that are muscially behind and the majority on an average level. I prepare my lessons to the average. The gifted ones naturally get the more difficult assignments. Those gifted ones tend to motivate themselves once they get excited about the performance. As far as time and attention, they usually get less. My experience is that those at the upper end are often self motivated and require less. I f my lesson is prepared well the majority of the children get the same amount of attention and learn most of the activity in class. The musically behind children do require extra work. I often work with parent volunteers and the other students will stop and provide attention to the students that need to catch up. There is strong feelings of teamwork among the choirs.

I believe that time and attention is not a good measure of equality. Perhaps the academic standard should be the measure as the performance is for my choirs. Equality in education should have as its goal making sure that all children in a grade actually have mastered the skill. No teacher can compensate for a child who genetically has less ability or make up for a substandard home life. The educator can instill a sense of purpose in the classroom and respect for each student as an individual. As a result, the time and attention will regulate itself naturally. All students have a chance and the care of the group helping each individually to reach a goal.

Reflections on Consequentialism and "One-Caring"

Our discussion in class Tuesday night reminded me of two specific teachers I had in high school, and cast them both in a different light to me.

My 10th grade chemistry class remains the one class in my entire scholastic career that gave me the most trouble. While facts didn’t give me much trouble, I never understood how to balance chemical equations. This activity being the fundamental part of chemistry that it is, I consistently performed low on tests, and only really made it through labs with the aid of my partner. By the end of the year, I fully expected an F and had already accepted the fact that I was going to be taking the course again. Chemistry was an unusual beast for me. I was an A and B student, something my teacher was well aware of, and the supreme feeling of failure I had over this class was something unfamiliar to me. When I finally received my grade, I was surprised to find that I had received a D. It was still a low score, and a disappointment, but it saved me from having to languish through the course again. I understood why my teacher had done what he did, but I didn’t understand the philosophical principle behind it until now. I’m certain that he considered the outcome of giving me an F, and the potential discouragement and academic problems that would accompany it, and bumped me up a letter grade for the greater good that it would serve. I never thought that my teacher had done this out of any more than simple charity, but now I’m fairly certain he was being compelled by a consequentialist point of view. It gives me a refined sense of gratitude for the favor.

The concept of the one-caring instructor brought to mind my 9th grade English teacher. Unlike many of the teachers I had before (or since, really), this teacher was particularly interested in my personal development in the class. I wrote a lot in my spare time between classes, and my teacher expressed genuine interest in what I was working on. This by itself didn’t surprise me, but eventually my teacher allowed me to opt out of entire class assignments and discussions to pursue whatever independent project I was working on. This gesture not only gave me more confidence in my writing, but also really showed me that my teacher genuinely cared about my development and believed in my ability to work through the course material on my own terms. The incident was one of the primary driving forces behind my eventual desire to pursue teaching. I saw reflected in my teacher an image of the role an educator could play in supporting and encouraging students in their search for their ideal selves.

Class Notes - 2/4/09

Review: The key thing we are looking for is a way to justify ethical claims, which are different than factual claims and claims of opinion. Historically, factual claims and ethical claims were thought to be the same thing; however, ethics today has moved away from this view. Factual claims can be verified (the sky is blue) while ethical claims are normative and make a statement of what to do (don’t kill). There are two ways to justify ethical claims: consequentialism and non-consequentialism. The consequentialist sees punishment as a way to deter future bad behavior; punishment may help rehabilitate the guilty party and punishment may separate a potentially dangerous person from society. They are looking for ways to maximize the good. The non-consequentialist sees punishment not as a way to deter further bad behavior but as a way to provide retribution as a way to punish the guilty and not the innocent.

Non-consequentialism has many features. First, it seeks to treat people as ends rather than as means. Happiness and pleasure are not particularly important, but respect for persons is. It states we can’t use other people merely for our own good because if we disrespect their rational capacity then it ultimately diminishes our own rational capacity. The non-consequentialist is concerned with duty and obligations. We have these duties because people deserve respect for just being people; however, they must be rational, or reasonable, to be considered a person who deserves respect.

There are two problems with consequentialism. The first problem is that we don’t know what the consequences will be; it depends on what happens in the future. The second problem is it leads us to moral places that violate our moral sense. For example: We could cure cancer if we caused a small group of children to experience cancer and by learning from them, millions and millions of people could be cured of cancer. The pain of a few would benefit a larger group. It justifies what many people would consider immoral. The problem with non-consequentialism is that we are to recognize the value of a person and show them respect but how does punishment that causes pain show respect? And non-consequentialism tends to display an interest in the consequences of actions in order to determine if they are ethical. (Strike and Soltis pp. 26-29)

Utilitarianism’s central doctrine is that social policy ought to be determined by what produces the greatest good for the greatest number. It requires that all of the consequences for everyone’s well-being be taken into account. (Strike and Soltis p. 12)

Philosophers Locke and Kant believed that a person had certain rights just because they’re a person. Kant believed that personhood was something that you achieved. Being rational makes you a person but you are not born rational. You have to develop it.

Rationality is what makes us fully human and deserving of respect. We can’t use people merely for our own gain. When we disrespect someone else’s rationality then we diminish our own rationality. We must also ask ourselves whether our course of action should be an action for everyone. We can’t lie because we don’t want others to lie.

In an ethical view rules matter more than consequences. Rules that are rational demand our attention. Rules have to be based on something. The rule “don’t lie” has to be based on a law that defines what a lie is. Rules become justified by other rules that are justified by other rules and it becomes a vicious cycle. Where do we start?

Kant tried to start with our rationality but we are not always rational. Competent means a demonstrated ability to make rational choices. This is designed to rule out those who are clearly mentally ill and children – both of which are unable to be rational. Because some people are not able to make rational decisions we have a duty towards them but we don’t have to agree with their decisions.

Case studies: (1) Ms. Jones calls Johnny’s father to school to talk about a fight that he had started. When Mr. Pugnacious arrives it is obvious that he has been drinking and he is holding a belt in his hand ready to punish Johnny. Ms. Jones lies and says that Johnny did not start the fight. She takes the conequentialist approach. The non-consequentialist approach would have had Ms. Jones tell the truth and deal with the father’s reaction.(S&S pp. 9-17)

Several observations were made: What if Johnny confesses to his dad that he did start the fight? The father will now think that Johnny lied to his teacher and he might also think that the teacher lied to him. Who should he trust?

Should the teacher have allowed Johnny to ride home with his dad since the dad had obviously been drinking? Ethical obligations often overlap with legal obligations. Legally if a teacher suspects that a child is being abused she has to report it.

Can we vacillate between a consequentialist and a non-consequentialist view? The goal of philosophical ethical theory is the attempt to justify ethical claims which can change from theory to theory.

(2) Henry, a basketball player on scholarship, plagiarizes an English paper. If the teacher fails him he will have to retake the course; he will lose his scholarship; he will be suspended from the team; he will be unhappy, the school will be unhappy and the team will be unhappy. But if she passes him is she doing the right thing? The class decided that the teacher had a third option: to work with the student to rewrite the paper. (S&S pp.1-3)

Why do the consequences matter more in case study number 1 than in case study number 2?

Ethical theories should cause us to reflect on our intuitions, the reasons we use for making our decisions and identifying the common elements. By introducing these theories it should provide us with a common terminology and conceptual apparatus to organize our thinking. By placing it in historical, philosophical, social and legal context will stretch our thinking. Without theory it boils down to the anecdotal evidence that we can muster.

Remember, ethical theory’s goal isn’t to help people make ethical decisions, but is an attempt to have them justify their ethical claims. In ethical decision making, you shouldn’t come up with your response and then pick the theory that best fits your answer. This is backwards and can lead to significant inconsistency. Instead, you should first pick the theory you want to use and then come up with your response.

The goal of our text is to cause us to reflect on:

1. Our intuitions
2. Whatever we bring to the table to make our decisions
3. The reasons we us in making our decisions

(3) A teacher searches a student’s sweatshirt thinking that she might find a wallet that had been stolen earlier in the day and finds a knife instead. Her principal asks her to lie about it. The law says that students can be searched while on school property. The teacher was within her rights to search the sweatshirt without having to lie about looking for a wallet instead of a knife. It was unnecessary for the principal to ask her to lie. (S&S pp.18-19)

The ethical issue is whether to lie if a superior asks you to lie. It is important to recognize how our ethical processes work. Sometimes we vacillate back and forth when making a decision but that is a very important part of the decision making process.

(4) Mr. Fuse, a chemistry teacher, leaves the classroom for an emergency call and while he is gone someone opens a locked cabinet and uses those chemicals to cause an explosion. No one confesses so Mr. Fuse punishes the entire class. The next day he receives an anonymous note blaming Alex. Alex refuses to admit to causing the explosion but Mr. Fuse punished him anyways and lifts the class punishment. (S&S pp. 22-23)

The consequentialist and non-consequentialist view in this care are very different. For the consequenstialist the important thing is that this never happens again. It doesn’t matter that innocent people were punished. For the non-consequentialist punishing Alex on the basis of an anonymous note is not showing respect for him and the decision to punish the entire class shows a lack of respect for them as well.

Nel Noddings

Nel Noddings theory of caring is not based on rationality but on the idea of caring. For Noddings the basis of ethics is our relatedness. The ultimate relationship is the caring relationship between a mother and a child. This relationship requires two parts: the one caring and the one being cared for. Each part has a role and if those roles are not performed then the relationship will be diminished. These roles are not equal with regards to responsibility. The idea is that if a student sees that you care, it influences them to care as well. If they see that their teacher doesn’t care, why should they care? This caring relationship is one that has to be developed. Teachers need to help their students see themselves as cared-for and also see themselves as one day being the one-caring.

Nodding believes that schools are not doing enough to provide a caring/ caring for relationship. She believes this caring relationship ought to be exemplified in schools, but schools aren’t places that let care happen – they inhibit it. Noddings thinks the exact opposite should be happening. Schools should teach individuals to recognize that they are being cared for and to eventually care for others.

The two principle obligations of the one caring are: engrossment – trying to see things from the other persons perspective; and motivational displacement toward the projects – taking your motivations and putting them aside to focus on the motivations of the one being cared for. (Curren p.372)

The cared-for principle duty is to respond to the one who is caring.

Noddings recognizes that this theory will be hard to carry out but we shouldn’t sell ourselves short. Once you start the caring process everything else will fall into line. “Everything we do, as teachers, has moral overtones.” (Curren p. 374)

A possibility to help this relationship occur could be looping. That way, teachers get to know their students very well and can jump right into learning the following years.

Dr. Pope reminded us that this caring relationship is not all hugs and flowers. Caring also involves doing things that aren’t fun. We as teachers may have to do things students don’t like but are ultimately in their best interest.

For more information on Nodding’s caring relationship as it relates to teachers, see her book “The Challenge to Care in Schools.”

Summary: The ethical ideal is how we see ourselves. We can only see that through our relations with others. We try to see ourselves as others see us. The key is to care for others as well as you care for yourself.

Dewey

Both Noddings and Dewey’s theories can be seen as a philosophical way to approach classroom management. The basis for classroom management for Dewey is the interest of the class as a whole and getting the individual to see himself as part of a whole/society. What happens in the classroom should also happen in the school and therefore should happen in society. For this to happen there have to be rules that are followed. The rules come from the activity. The class members recognize that they’re all in this together and in order to accomplish things then there need to be rules in place.

Dewey says that the rules only work if the people involved in the activity understand the rules and choose to play by the rules. Students need to understand that the rules governing their conduct grow out of the fact that they’re all in it together.

Compiled by: Sarah Dagenhart and Maryanne Hatchell