A Lesson Well Learned

It seems we have reached the end of EDU 100 and it sure has been an experience. After all the readings and fieldwork, it would be an understatement to say I learned a few things. Though much of the written information was familiar, I definitely learned new approaches to consider when planning lessons in the future. I learned the importance of understanding Ebonics and to be aware of cultural differences.
Through fieldwork I was able to see what works and what doesn’t when working with children. Something I definitely will adopt is teaching the students responsibility and social skills to handle their own problems appropriately. I think this is a very valuable skill for young students to learn so that they do not have to constantly be running to the teacher for help or getting into fights. Also, I was able to observe the way students learn from watching others and as a result, the importance of paying attention to our own actions. But most importantly, I was able to confirm my passion and desire to teach young children.
Besides the fieldwork, one of the most beneficial assignments we had in EDU 100 was to research hot topics in education and write about them on this blog. Though I could do this on my own any day, I probably would not have and I thank the instructor for encouraging this. It was beneficial to me and the rest of the class to dive into common topics of discussion in the education world today. This provides us with an idea of what is going on in our future career field.

I thank the instructor as well as my fellow peers for bringing great ideas and insight to the discussion boards and helping me to grow throughout our time in this course.

Teaching like a Coach

Many people compare education and teaching to building something, but to me, it's more a sports team such as football.

Before you can do anything you need the players (or students) and a coach (or teacher) to work with them to improve what they know and/or provide them with more useful information. The coach can't do this alone though, he/she also needs to have a team to work with; this team may consist of the manager of the team (principal), a team of specialist trainers (specialist teachers, i.e. art or music), a psychologist, a medical doctor, and/or a physical therapist (paraprofessional). When players are injured or impaired in some way, the doctors can be used to provide services to them (such as students with special needs are provided services in the classroom). Also, it is important for the coach not to overlook the work done with the specialty trainers; some players may be better at punting for example, while another player is a faster sprinter. This information can be used to help place the players in the position they will best succeed in. All of these people form a team that works together with the coach to try and best prepare the team for the game. Even still, the coach may not always work alone, he may also converse with coaches from other teams or minor leagues about different ways of doing things. This is the same way teachers work with other teachers in an inclusion school. Even more indirectly, the team will work with community organizations to promote their games and help local charities and maintain a well-rounded appearance. Schools should also work with community organizations to get the students involved and interested in the community. This will be beneficial to them in the long run.

Now that we have the team, we need to ensure that all the players are aware of the rules of the game and their goals, just as teachers must know the rules of the classroom and school as well as their goals for the class. From there they must create a game plan (or lesson plan in school) for how they are going to achieve those goals. They can be creative in these plans, and actually that is encouraged so that the other teams are unable to predict what they are going to do. In school teachers are encouraged to be creative in their ways of teaching in order to reach all the students, move with the times and keep things interesting for the kids. In developing these plans, the coach/teacher may even use past game plans to learn from and expand from. They will teach their team about what happened in the past and how they can learn from it. This is the same way teachers should teach history or science to their students today.

Other information that should be provided to players is how to stray away from the illegal use of steroids or even drugs and alcohol. All of these things can be detrimental to their ability to perform in the game. Putting an emphasis on this in schools as well helps to lower the rate of students at risk. This is also another reason the psychologist can be helpful to have as a member of the team.
After a bunch of small games or tests where they are up against other players or students, the team will move to the playoffs where they will face bigger tests, such as the MCAS in MA. This all leads up to the SAT of games...the Superbowl. Here they are up against all the best players in the league. The same when you take the SATs, your scores (once submitted to a college) are being compared to those of all the brightest students as well. If they win the Superbowl, they win acceptance to their ideal college.

Without a motivated and interested coach dedicated to working with his diverse team, the players never would make it to the playoffs never mind the Superbowl.
I learned the importance of all of this in my ELED 100 course and will forever carry that knowledge with me. I hope to one day help lead a classroom of children to their Superbowl as well.

Becoming a Social Justice Teacher

Being a social justice teacher means caring for the well-being of your students and doing what it takes to direct those students who are at risk toward success.
To be a social justice teacher, one article (Rethinking Schools) suggests a number of steps:
-Work together with teachers, parents and students. Don't be a follower, but don't isolate your ideas from others either
-Get to know your students and what does and does not work for them. It is important to be grounded in how to teach them before trying to get too creative
-Try to incorporate multiple methods of teaching. There is no real right or wrong way of teaching something though some ways can be more efficient than others...figure out what those are
-Get involved in the community and encourage students to do the same

Teachers for Social Justice wish to empower their students to think critically and to make well thought-out decisions on their own. They encourage their students to be aware of what is going on in the world around them to to have an opinion on that world.
Not only that, they are also working toward providing recognition for those teachers and schools who perform well, while trying to increase the success level of lower-rated schools. To do this, they encourage debates in school and giving the students a voice in decisions about their education.

I believe that this form of teaching keeps the class interested because much of it will be intereactive. It also helps prepare them for the future and to make them more well rounded. Also, it is proven that when students are involved in their community, they are less likely to get mixed up with drugs or alcohol.

Perennialism

What is perennialism?

Simply stated (according to McNergney), it is the idea that the truth is the same for everyone no matter where they live. Another idea often associated with perennialism is that all religions say the same thing.

How can you you defend perennialism?

I chose to research perennialism because it struck me as highly unrealistic and ignorant of the world. The first thing that came to mind was Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave," that basically fights against perennialism. Plato's essay explains how the truth varies by the environment you grow up in and your surroundings. He explains this by describing a group of prisoners who are kept in a dark cave their entire lives and led to believe only the shadows on the walls to be truth. When they are finally let out into the light, they have trouble believing that anything they see is reality. I first read this essay in a sociology class and found it to be very true, we believe what our senses and environment allow us to believe. For those of us who live in New England, that could be very different from what they believe in the Mid-West or in another country.
Then there is the idea that all religions say the same thing; well if the perennialists know anything about religions, they would see that this is not true. Not all religions talk about God, preach individual salvation, or teach reincarnation. (Integral World) According to the article, the problem is that "it tries to overgeneralize and ignore individual differences."

So back to my question about how to defend perennialism. Well first of all, perennialists separate exoteric and esoteric religions. "Exoteric religion is culturally conditioned, specific, local, dogmatic -- esoteric religions is cross-cultural, generic, global and tolerant" (Integral World). The article continues to explain how each religion contributes unique values that are then combined to form a type of "harmony." In this way they work together to create a common truth. The more I read about how it is possible to defend perennialism, the more it seemed they were reaching for ways. For example, to prove that the various holy trinities used by different religions propose common truths, they state that they "reflect the universal spiritual principles of Will, Love/Wisdom and Manifest Activity."

In my opinion, they are ignoring the differences and anything that could prove them wrong and searching for the small areas that can be linked in some far-off, abstract way. Sure, sometimes it is okay to overgeneralize, but most of the time, I would try to sway away from that. It can be detrimental in some aspects of life to really overgeneralize like this, especially when trying to teach a multicultural class.

Cochlear Implants

Should students who are candidates for cochlear implants be given them or should they become part of the Deaf community?

In short, a cochlear implant is an electronic device that sparks the sense of hearing for students with severe to profound hearing.

Many people advocate for the use of cochlear implants. According to a study at Drury University, advocates "believe the decision to get a cochlear implant should be no harder than deciding to buy glasses to correct a vision problem." Though not every child with a hearing impairment is a candidate for the implants, for those who are, professionals believe that the chance is high that they will benefit. Some factors have been found to create positive outcomes: implemented early, an intact cochlea (inner ear), do not have other disabilities, attend a school that encourages auditory oral/verbal development, as well as having a devoted family to work on listening and communication skills.

There are some medical risks to receiving cochlear implants. In addition to the average risks of any surgery involving anesthesia, the most common is the loss of any remaining natural hearing ability. Other complications may include bacterial meningitis or others that could result in surgery or removal of the device. Even after the surgery, the children must be sure to care for the device and stay clear of MRIs and electrostatic discharge (present around balloons and in ball pits). Some people may be skeptical of whether the benefits are worth the risks or the disappointment of not allowing children to partake in such activities. Also, by "success," doctors do not mean obtaining hearing and the ability to speak. In fact, what doctors may fail to explain is that success can be defined as improved recognition of environmental sounds. Those who advocate the implants however, believe that it of course is worth the risks to obtain even the most minor benefit in order to improve their ability to live and communicate in the hearing world.

That being said, the major controversy is found within the Deaf community. These people believe that being deaf is not something that needs to be fixed; it is not an impairment or a disability, but rather a way of life. These people join together and form a subculture of their own where they see devices such as cochlear implants as intrusive and offensive to their culture. They believe that they should be able to live life with their own form of communication. They want to be allowed to thrive and accept deafness as an alternative to hearing.

I grew up with a student in my class who was born without fully developed ears. He always wore a thick headband and he had a some type of skin-tone device that sat at the top of his ear with a wire that went down and disappeared under the headband. I never actually knew what it was until I took a special education course and learned about cochlear implants. The boy was able to attend all the same classes our peers did and he was a decent student. Although I never knew what it was, I knew that it was providing him with the hearing ability that otherwise he would have been living without, and I thought that was just incredible.

Personally I do not believe in the Deaf culture, therefore, I am an advocate of the cochlear implants. I understand that people are able to live life without speaking or hearing; though I do believe life would be easier if you could. When it comes to getting a job, many jobs require some form of communication, limiting the options for someone who is lacking the ability to listen to directions and communicate verbally with others. I liked the comparison between cochlear implants and eye glasses. I actually think the same way; why isn't there a blind community as well? I don't necessarily think of being deaf as a disability, but more of an impairment. The child is not broken (as was stated i the text) but needs assistance, as does someone who needs contacts or receives laser eye surgery. If you ask me, I would vote for cochlear implants on any given day to try to provide a child with the most forms of communication possible to be successful in all aspects of life.

Friend, Marilyn Penovich. Special Education: Contemporary Perspectives for School Professionals. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2008. 360-62. Print.

Standardized Testing

Do higher test scores really mean smarter students?
Advocates for standardized testing claim that the tests are used to determine how effective a school is. If the students do not do well on the tests, the school is determined to need support in order to improve the way they teach. The tests supposedly contain information that determines the proficiency of a student and whether they are ready to move on to the next grade level. Advocates believe that they work to raise standards and make it so that students work to meet that level in order to move-on or graduate. (Frontline testing)

On the other hand, there are many more people who are opposed to standardized testing. They argue that standardized testing hinders creative thinking, redirects teaching methods and tests material that is more of less unimportant in the real world. The biggest argument I came across however, comes from Diane Ravitch, the author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System. She not only argues these points in her article In Need of a Renaissance, she goes even farther to say that they are "dumbing down the schools." She explains that testing has changed the way that teachers teach and that they are now teaching to the test rather than teaching important material. She says,

The schools will surely be failures if students graduate knowing how to choose the right option from four bubbles on a multiple-choice test, but unprepared to lead fulfilling lives, to be responsible citizens, and to make good choices for themselves, their families, and our society.

She continues with this and explains that the tests often evaluate a student's proficiency in reading and mathematics, but these are not the most important skills learned in school. What can be argued as more important in the long run is the want to learn, the ability to devise questions, to experiment with different ways of reaching an objective, and simply to be creative and think differently. These skills could never be tested in a multiple-choice test.
Even more shocking was her comments on states cheating on the tests in order to make their scores higher; this can be choosing specific students to take the test (or not to take the test) or they may even attempt to change their scores in one way or another.
In my opinion, Diane is absolutely correct. I have never been an advocate of standardized testing, mainly because I am not a good tester. I second guess myself during tests and make silly mistakes all the time. When I was applying to college I dreaded taking the SATs, knowing that I wouldn't get a very high score because I am also a very slow tester (time was always another issue for me). But even before then, we have the MCAS here in MA and it always just seemed really silly to me. I remember each year around MCAS time my teachers would stop in the middle of their lesson and do MCAS prep. If the tests are suppose to evaluate what we know, why do we need all this prep? This is a key example of teaching to the test...for 2 weeks in math we would work on nothing but past math problems that have been seen on the MCAS. Language Arts classes always included writing assignments that would be similar to those we would see on the MCAS and we would learn the way the graders would like to read the essays. This completely wipes out any opportunity for creativity when writing.

Another point she made that really stuck out to me was the constant search for short cuts and quick answers to improving education. This reminded me of a book I read called The McDonaldization of Society in which they explain that Americans want speed and efficiency in everything. It amazes me that we even see that in education; of all things to search for the most efficient means, I feel education should be left alone. If anything, teachers need to work harder and longer in order to successfully provide a quality education for their students.

Common Core?

Is it a good idea for states to be adopting the Common Core State Standards?

The standards were coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (Common Core) They are suppose to create common standards in English, Language Arts and Mathematics for all students between kindergarten and grade 12 that will ensure that they graduate with the necessary basic skills that ensure the ability to succeed in entry-level college courses and workforce training programs. The CCSS suggest that these standards will represent students of all needs and abilities. If all 50 states were to accept these standards, not matter where you live, teachers and parents will be sure to know what to expect out of the school and that the students will have specific benchmarks to be met each year.
The map below shows a visual of the states who have already adopted the CCSS (in green), those who have approved them but have not formally adopted them (blue), and those who have supposedly adopted them but have not released any formal statement (yellow).

Like any proposed program or bill, there are doubts about how the CCSS will actually improve the achievement level of students. According to examiner.com, home school parents are concerned about the limited amount of local community interaction that is included in the standards. Other parents are concerned about the realistic ability of students with special needs or learning disabilities to meet the standards. Other school states believe the standards to be too low in comparison to their current standards. The standards can be found on the Common Core site. On the ASCD InService site, various people commented their opinion on the standards and one comment against the CCSS really stuck out to me. The author suggested that national standards are not the solution and that more effort should be focused on the way teachers are teaching. The author says, "If 75%-80% of the success of students coming from the competence of their teachers, why are we spending so much time on that which is minimally influential?"

I understand what the author is saying and of course I agree that the success of students definitely comes from their teachers. However, teachers teach to specific standards, which right now differ from state to state. If a family moves to a different state, the children may be faced with much higher or much lower standards than they had in their previous school. So in my opinion, yes, there should be national standards; however, I think the standards should be high enough that the students are being challenged and not just skimming by.

What do you think?