"Can education develop students as critical thinkers, skilled workers, and active citizens?"
"You must arouse children's curiosity and make them think about school".
I believe the answer to the first quote lies within the second one; in order to make students critical thinkers and skilled workers, schools need to make them use their brains with their opinions. I think it is a good idea to ask students why does the government force us to go to school. It gets children thinking and also teaches them why school is important. I believe if a children think of answers by themselves they would want to go to school more often and perhaps wouldn't hate it. This also gets them thinking and is a way for them to socialize which is an important part of schooling. By teaching children at a young age how to think for themselves this will benefit them in the long run for further schooling and careers. This related to the Anyon reading because middle class schools teach based on the right answer and how that answer was achieved.
I know throughout my schooling teachers never cared for my reasoning behind anything or what I thought and when I got to college it was completely different. In college most professors ask students why they think of certain things and care about their opinions. For example, my Math 144 class is all about discussion and what we think. Instead of my teacher just teaching he lets us figure it out ourselves and then we discuss the correct answer together as a class. If someone comes up with a different answer my professor does not tell he/she is wrong but instead asks how and why we got that answer. Another class were opinion is important is this FNED class. At first, I was hesitant to say my opinion because I was not used to it but then as class continued I became more open. If I was taught at a young age that my opinion counts I would not be as scared to speak my opinion today.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Schooling with Down Syndrome-Kliewer
"I started to notice that I didn't like the classes I was taking called special education I had to go through almost all my life. I wanted to take other classes that interested me. I had never felt so mad, I wanted to cry".
Reading this article I immediately connected with it. This quote frustrated me because I think that children with down syndrome and any mental illness should be allowed to take other classes other than special education. In high school I participated in a class called Teaching Pathways; this program was one period were select students worked with the special ed children. This was my favorite class because I got to interact with these children and learn their personalities. The students in this class ranged from severe down syndrome to a speech delay. They not only learned a lot from us but we learned a lot from them. They all had special talents and I learned not to judge a book by its cover. In my high school these children had a separate room where they spent most of the day and then for a few classes they joined the rest of the high school population. Even though sometimes this caused problems such as teasing, it helped the children socialize with the rest of the school. It also helps them to not feel left out. I think that the only way teasing will stop is for them to interact with others because children tease because they are afraid; afraid of the unknown or the different, but if they learn they are like normal children just a little different then it will help them fit in. I remember sitting in my art class with a few of the special ed children in it and when one of them had an outburst the rest of the class didn't know how to handle it. But because I was around them I knew it was nothing to worry about and that the aid would handle it or it would blow over soon. So having them involved in so called regular classrooms also teaches everyone how to act. I think all schools should have their special education children in normal classes for some period of the day to benefit everyone.
Reading this article I immediately connected with it. This quote frustrated me because I think that children with down syndrome and any mental illness should be allowed to take other classes other than special education. In high school I participated in a class called Teaching Pathways; this program was one period were select students worked with the special ed children. This was my favorite class because I got to interact with these children and learn their personalities. The students in this class ranged from severe down syndrome to a speech delay. They not only learned a lot from us but we learned a lot from them. They all had special talents and I learned not to judge a book by its cover. In my high school these children had a separate room where they spent most of the day and then for a few classes they joined the rest of the high school population. Even though sometimes this caused problems such as teasing, it helped the children socialize with the rest of the school. It also helps them to not feel left out. I think that the only way teasing will stop is for them to interact with others because children tease because they are afraid; afraid of the unknown or the different, but if they learn they are like normal children just a little different then it will help them fit in. I remember sitting in my art class with a few of the special ed children in it and when one of them had an outburst the rest of the class didn't know how to handle it. But because I was around them I knew it was nothing to worry about and that the aid would handle it or it would blow over soon. So having them involved in so called regular classrooms also teaches everyone how to act. I think all schools should have their special education children in normal classes for some period of the day to benefit everyone.
Social Clas and the Hidden Curriculum of Work-Anyon
In reading this article I noticed several things were different between middle class schools and working class schools. Middle class schools teach based on process while working class schools teach based on getting the correct answers. In working class schools "teachers rarely explain why the work is being assigned, how it might connect to other assignments, or what the idea is that lies behind the procedure or gives it coherence and perhaps meaning or significance...Work is often evaluated not according to whether it is right or wrong but according to whether the children followed the right steps". I do not think is necessarily a bad way to teach because on a test if they got the answer wrong but understood the steps they wouldn't be down graded as much. However, I do not agree with having them memorize the steps because they are not learning anything and will not remember it later on it life and they definitely will not understand it. Another thing that irritated me is when Anyon explains that after kids still did not understand how to solve a specific problem the teacher "made no attempt to explain the concept of dividing things into groups or to give them manipulations for their own investigation. Rather she went over the steps with them again and told them they 'needed more practice"'. I do not think this is the proper way to teach and everyone should be taught like the middle class.
The middle class teaches based on the right answer and how you got that answer. Here, instead of just giving them steps teaches explain how to solve problems and when children get the wrong answers they do not degrade them and say you need more practice but instead ask how and why they got the answer they got. This will help children understand better and remember these facts for the future.
I feel like I can relate to both of these classes because some classes I have taken are middle class and others were like working class. My biology class in college was like that of a working class because we only had to simply memorize facts and not necessarily know how they worked or how to do them. For that class I simply just memorized facts and when I was done needing them it was as if they left my brain and got ready for more facts to memorize. However, my math class is like the middle class because it explains how things are done and why they are done that way. I feel like every class should be taught that way.
The middle class teaches based on the right answer and how you got that answer. Here, instead of just giving them steps teaches explain how to solve problems and when children get the wrong answers they do not degrade them and say you need more practice but instead ask how and why they got the answer they got. This will help children understand better and remember these facts for the future.
I feel like I can relate to both of these classes because some classes I have taken are middle class and others were like working class. My biology class in college was like that of a working class because we only had to simply memorize facts and not necessarily know how they worked or how to do them. For that class I simply just memorized facts and when I was done needing them it was as if they left my brain and got ready for more facts to memorize. However, my math class is like the middle class because it explains how things are done and why they are done that way. I feel like every class should be taught that way.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Chris Colfer talks about being gay
If anyone watched Glee they know who this is. This is Chris Colfer he plays Kurt on Glee. Kurt's character is gay and they do a good job showing the hardships a homosexual deals with. I agree with him when he says that its good television is discussing and showing homosexual relationships now, as opposed to before when it was frowned upon. They discuss in this clip that Kurt's dad talks to him about being gay and if you watched the episode his dad although he felt uncomfortable doing it, informed Kurt about being gay and gave him pamphlets to read. I think it was good to show the relationship he has with his father because although he is gay, Kurt's father loves him no matter what and thats what it should be.
Glee does a great job discussing sensitive issues such as sexual orientation, able bodiness, racism, and also self image. Last night's episode talked about self image and how you should love yourself no matter what. One of the main character's is contimplating a nose job because she has a big nose and does not like it. She finally has an empiphany with the help from her friends on the glee team and decideds not to get it. I think topics like these are important to discuss and what better way to do it than on television because children watch it and it is entertaining. Thank you Glee for keeping us informed =)
Glee does a great job discussing sensitive issues such as sexual orientation, able bodiness, racism, and also self image. Last night's episode talked about self image and how you should love yourself no matter what. One of the main character's is contimplating a nose job because she has a big nose and does not like it. She finally has an empiphany with the help from her friends on the glee team and decideds not to get it. I think topics like these are important to discuss and what better way to do it than on television because children watch it and it is entertaining. Thank you Glee for keeping us informed =)
How Willy Got His Wheels (Able Bodiness)
 |
Watching Sam's post about the dolphin loosing his fin and the whole concept of able bodiness for animals reminded me of a book I read as a child. This book How Willy Got His Wheels was about a dog who looses his back legs and gets adopted by a woman named Debroah and makes a wheelchair for him. This wheelchair helps him get around better because before he couldnt walk. I always thought this book was so inspiring and still remains as one of my favorites. Sam was correct we do not think about animals when we
think of able bodiness but this book is a good example of it.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Teaching Boys and Girls Seperately
This article made me think a lot on whether or not I agreed with the idea of if boys and girls should be seperated. I feel as though being seperated has its benefits and its downsides. The children can now concentrate on their studies instead of worrying about boys or being made fun of or anything. But it also takes away from social aspect of schooling. Maybe if classes were seperated based on sex then during lunch or recess children should be all together. This way they get the social aspect of being coed. Another downside might be that being seperated is teaching children that they are seperated because they learn differently when that might not always be the truth. Also, if a girl likes doing what boys do or vice versa then she might not fit in with the girls and be left out in an all girl classroom. I do not see the harm in classrooms being coed; afterall, thats how they have always been why change it. I am just fine and I went to coed schools all through life.
"David Chadwell, one of Sax’s disciples and the coordinator of Single- Gender Initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education, explained to me the ways that teachers should teach to gender differences. For boys, he said: 'You need to get them up and moving. That’s based on the nervous system, that’s based on eyes, that’s based upon volume and the use of volume with the boys.” Chadwell, like Sax, says that differences in eyesight, hearing and the nervous system all should influence how you instruct boys. “You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.' For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on 'the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class."'
-This is a good explanation of how single sexed classrooms work; however, it is also stereotypical. Boys tend to be more rambunxious and girls tend to talk a lot. This statement is basically what Chadwell is saying and is where I disagree. However, I agree with what he says on instead of repremanding the children you enforce it, making boys to be physical and hands on and allowing the girls to talk and communicate. I do think that this should be done in all classrooms whether it be coed or not because no matter the sex child learn differently. I know if I went to school and they did this I would have enjoyed school much more. I will also try to use a similar technique when I become a teacher to keep the children's attention.
Overall, people have their own oppionions of different sex schools and both opinions should be viewed. Sexism still exists and usually is very stereotypical. Not only does sexism exist in schooling but also in many sports. I have first hand with this because I dance and I constantly hear "boys shouldn't dance, they should play football". This statement is ridiculous if the boy likes to dance let him dance. Also, many times girls are not allowed to play sports with boys and if they are they are not treated equally. Luckily, in my high school we had one girl play on the boys football team and she was treated equally, but many times she was called "butch" which I think is wrong. I think sex shouldn't matter if it does not harm anyone.
"David Chadwell, one of Sax’s disciples and the coordinator of Single- Gender Initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education, explained to me the ways that teachers should teach to gender differences. For boys, he said: 'You need to get them up and moving. That’s based on the nervous system, that’s based on eyes, that’s based upon volume and the use of volume with the boys.” Chadwell, like Sax, says that differences in eyesight, hearing and the nervous system all should influence how you instruct boys. “You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.' For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on 'the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class."'
-This is a good explanation of how single sexed classrooms work; however, it is also stereotypical. Boys tend to be more rambunxious and girls tend to talk a lot. This statement is basically what Chadwell is saying and is where I disagree. However, I agree with what he says on instead of repremanding the children you enforce it, making boys to be physical and hands on and allowing the girls to talk and communicate. I do think that this should be done in all classrooms whether it be coed or not because no matter the sex child learn differently. I know if I went to school and they did this I would have enjoyed school much more. I will also try to use a similar technique when I become a teacher to keep the children's attention.
Overall, people have their own oppionions of different sex schools and both opinions should be viewed. Sexism still exists and usually is very stereotypical. Not only does sexism exist in schooling but also in many sports. I have first hand with this because I dance and I constantly hear "boys shouldn't dance, they should play football". This statement is ridiculous if the boy likes to dance let him dance. Also, many times girls are not allowed to play sports with boys and if they are they are not treated equally. Luckily, in my high school we had one girl play on the boys football team and she was treated equally, but many times she was called "butch" which I think is wrong. I think sex shouldn't matter if it does not harm anyone.
A Particularly Cheap White Wine
"The National Merit Scholarship, which is awarded to 15,000 students each year, based on pre-SAT (or PSAT) score, is distributed proportionately to representatives of each state, so that each state has the same number of winners as they have a percentage of the nation's overall high school graduates (4). Because the quality of schools varies dramatically across states, average scores on the PSAT will also vary wildly, but students in Mississippi will always get their 'fair share' even though many of them wouldn't have qualified had they attended school in a state like Massachusetts" (2).
-Having a merit based scholarship gives me mixed feelings. Yes it is solely based on merit and not race but the standards are different everywhere. I understand lowering the standards in states that have a lower graduation rate allows students there to receive aid, but it also takes away aid from people in other states with higher scores. For instance there could be a student in Connecticut who scored the same with a person in Missippi but the person in Mississipi would probably receive the aid and not the student from Connecticut. This could happen because the standards are in Connecticut are higher than Mississippi so eventhough they both had the same score the Mississippi ones are lower allowing that student to win the scholarship eventhough they both might have needed it and had the same scores. This reminds me of the qualifications to become a teacher. When I was taking the Praxis a man was talking about how in Connecticut it is much harder to become a teacher because their are more tests one has to take that are much harder than ones for Rhode Island. Similarily, he mentioned that Connecticut and other states are modeling after Colorado because they supposedly have the hardest qualifications. This reminds me of this quote because eventhough I might pass all the test according to Rhode Island I might not have passes according to Connecicut or somewhere else. However, having merit based scholarships is also good because they do this evenly because it allows everyone to get a chance to receive aid instead of just one state with high standards receiving all the aid; leading to the idea that, "to ignore this background context, and to award scholarships based solely on so-called merit, is to miss the ways in which the academic success and accomplishments of white students have been structured by unequal and preferential opportunity, and the ways in which students of color have been systematically denied the same opportunity to achieve" (3).
Overall, I want to say that having scholarships based on race is a double standard. I understand it is done because they try to get rid of racisim and segregation and spread equally, giving other races chances to receive aid. However, in doing this we are seperated by races; so as much as it is trying to eliminate segregation we are very much seperated. I think it actually does the opposite of its purpose, it seperates us more giving people scholarships based on their color.
-Having a merit based scholarship gives me mixed feelings. Yes it is solely based on merit and not race but the standards are different everywhere. I understand lowering the standards in states that have a lower graduation rate allows students there to receive aid, but it also takes away aid from people in other states with higher scores. For instance there could be a student in Connecticut who scored the same with a person in Missippi but the person in Mississipi would probably receive the aid and not the student from Connecticut. This could happen because the standards are in Connecticut are higher than Mississippi so eventhough they both had the same score the Mississippi ones are lower allowing that student to win the scholarship eventhough they both might have needed it and had the same scores. This reminds me of the qualifications to become a teacher. When I was taking the Praxis a man was talking about how in Connecticut it is much harder to become a teacher because their are more tests one has to take that are much harder than ones for Rhode Island. Similarily, he mentioned that Connecticut and other states are modeling after Colorado because they supposedly have the hardest qualifications. This reminds me of this quote because eventhough I might pass all the test according to Rhode Island I might not have passes according to Connecicut or somewhere else. However, having merit based scholarships is also good because they do this evenly because it allows everyone to get a chance to receive aid instead of just one state with high standards receiving all the aid; leading to the idea that, "to ignore this background context, and to award scholarships based solely on so-called merit, is to miss the ways in which the academic success and accomplishments of white students have been structured by unequal and preferential opportunity, and the ways in which students of color have been systematically denied the same opportunity to achieve" (3).
Overall, I want to say that having scholarships based on race is a double standard. I understand it is done because they try to get rid of racisim and segregation and spread equally, giving other races chances to receive aid. However, in doing this we are seperated by races; so as much as it is trying to eliminate segregation we are very much seperated. I think it actually does the opposite of its purpose, it seperates us more giving people scholarships based on their color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)