This weeks readings focused on the effects of and the theories behind the desegregation of schools. This is the defining educational issue of the latter half of the 20th century. What started with Brown v. Board of Ed, in 1954, with desegregation, has grown to our current hot button issues of affirmative action and policies meant to evenly distribute racial demographics in schools, such as in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle, in 2007.
PICS v. Seattle, in a 5-4 decision found that Seattle's policy of using race as a tiebreaker when it came to being admitted to the various top public schools in the Seattle (and Jefferson, since they entered the lawsuit) school district was unconstitutional. The main reasons given in the majority opinion were that, 1) the school district had not previously used any form of segregation that required desegregation, and 2) that the use of race was too narrow of a determinant when there were so many other factors that played into the term diversity, such as special needs, SES, and exceptional learners (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle 2007). This reversed a trend of the courts in allowing admission policies that used race as a factor, such as in Grutter v. Bollinger, in 2003, although that had been a univeristy and not a secondary school system. The differing responses given by the supreme court seem, especially since in both these cases the results were 5-4 rulings, seem to show confusion and disagreement when it comes to desegregation. What constitutes a "compelling state interest" for a district to practice desegregation policies? When has desegregation gone too far? These are questions that need to be clarified.
Patricia Gurin focused on various social/behavioral theories and related them in a way that promotes the idea of desegregating schools, mainly at the college level. She finds that college student is in a transitional period in an adults life, and by increasing the heterogeneity of the schools, young adults will be both be better prepared for future interactions with people in diverse settings and have an environment which fosters more complex forms of thinking, which is what is desired in the university setting (Gurin 1999). These theories predict that desegregation will benefit all students, not just minorities.
Other research looks at some of the positive effects of desegregation, such as the interpersonal benefits of being in a diverse setting. Minorities will benefit from interacting with white students and teachers who have access to resources that will help minorities break economic and social barriers (Wells 1996). The resources that African-American students gain by entering heterogeneous schools are as important, if not more so than the academic achievement gains that may or may not be gained, since research is still uncertain about academic achievement.
Since the goal of desegregation is to eliminate racial bias in schools, jobs, and ideally all institutions, the academic achievement of minority students should not be the main concern. More important is that the curriculum is well balanced, equal access is provided, and that minority students are given a fair chance to enter and perform in colleges and the workforce. Hopefully in addressing these things first, academic achievement will benefit as a result, but as has been the mistake of researchers in the past, it should not be the sole qualification to determine whether or not desegregation is needed or whether or not it is effective. This has been not only the problem with desegregation, but all policies that focus only on academic achievement...I'm looking at you, No Child Left Behind.
Some things to consider:
1) Where would you draw the line at what amount of government intervention aimed at desegregation is appropriate?
2) What are the goals of desegregation that you find most important?
3) How can desegregation be done in a way that does not exacerbate racial tensions?
4) What is the difference between desegregation policies on the elementary, secondary, higher education levels?
Related link:
OYEZ: Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle
Supreme Court Quashes School Desegregation
The Civil Rights Project: School Desegregation
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Choice or Resegregation?
A rising problem in the United States is resegregation in the schools. According to the Orfield report (2004), the Dowell vs. Oklahoma City ruling in 1991 "authorized a return to segregated neighborhood schools, through the 2001 - 2002 school year and provides new information on the changes in schools were desegregation plans have ended." The report also went on to say that since this occurrence, schools with the vast majority of minorities have been suffering tremendously.
As we all know, there are many important issues at stake if the resegregation of schools was successful. There is evidence that children of lower SES do not have schools that are sufficient, the teachers are inadequate or are seen as "smart enough to leave" after seeing how depressing and apathetic poverty stricken schools are. The children tend not to succeed because studies have shown that their peers hold a greater influence over them than their teachers do. Motivation to learn is also heavily influenced by their peers. Research has been done that shows that the lower SES population devalues education and holds a strong resistance to middle class norms (Kahlenberg 2004). What are we going to do about their education? Is there anything we can do?
One option that is an extremely attractive option is the Magnet school. Magnet schools are choice schools that usually require a certain grade point average or test score, students are placed in a lottery (or something similar), and are placed in the school. A portion of the school is saved for students zoned for the school, as they are located in urban areas of high poverty. Students are bussed in to go there if they are accepted. Magnet schools are known for being academically successful as well as racially diverse across the board. Magnet schools have a unique curriculum and are very supportive of alternative teaching methods as well as supporting students' interests and talents through programming. Here is a video demonstrating the success of the magnet school.
Magnet schools are fairly common, but are not omnipresent in all school areas.
After watching the video and reflecting upon the readings, what do you think of the magnet school?
Do you think that by having more of them, the resegregation issue would move toward resolving itself?
Do you think that if magnet schools were more common that parents would want their children to go there since it wouldn't seem as special?
Do you think that there should be a movement to have more schools emulate the structure of a magnet school?
What is your opinion on the government's ability to zone students, despite what you see the results in education are?
Related Links:
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Homework Debate
While we have been discussing various different school choice options, and how schools can differ one thing remains relatively constant regardless of the type of school you choose: homework. I am sure that many of us remember the standard out of book curriculum where we were instructed to read a portion of a text, practice a few problems in class and then “do the rest for homework.” As students, many of us rushed though homework as quickly as possible in order to catch the newest episode of our favorite sitcom, or spend extra time playing outside with the neighbors…does this really promote learning?
For many of us, homework seems just as much a part of our youth as little league, family gatherings, and birthday celebrations. What I (and many educators) wonder is, is homework really necessary?
So many of us rarely stop to think about the added homework assignments that are given to students. More importantly negative aspects of homework are not often discussed. Alfie Kohn, author of The Homework Myth discusses some of the detriments of homework assignments.
- Students only feel frustrated and exhausted
- Leaves students with very little time for other activities
- Loss of interest in learning
- Parent/child relationships can suffer
- Kohn claims that there “is absolutely no evidence of any academic benefit from assigning homework in elementary or middle school.”
Of course, looking back, I credit actually doing my homework to mastering the material I had or for allowing me to realize the areas that I needed to work on. I wonder then, what is necessary for homework to be beneficial to students? What is the purpose of homework in middle and elementary school?
Some proponents of homework state
- It reinforces what students know
- Teaches students how to time manage
- Teaches students self-discipline and responsibility
- Encourages home and school connections
When I was student teaching it was often difficult for me to hold all of my students to the same standard with homework. I knew all of the students really well and I knew that some of them were not able to complete their homework at home due to their at home responsibilities. How do we as teachers still treat all students equitably but fairly at the same time? (Specifically in relation to homework?)
Kohn states, “anyone who believes that homework is beneficial should be willing to test that assumption by investigating the consequences of its absence.”
What do you all think? What is the value of homework? Is it necessary? What makes homework constitute as “busywork” Is giving the same assignment to all students beneficial if the ability level of students does not match? Should homework policy be consistent throughout the school/grade level?
Monday, November 10, 2008
So What Happens to the Schools Nobody Chooses?
Henry Levin elaborates two possible systems of school choice: market choice, and public choice. In practice, this basically translates to a voucher system (market choice) versus a public, charter-based system (public choice), but when people talk about school choice, the metaphor always seems to slide toward the market. We tend to focus on the idea that choice provides incentive for competition, but as Chubb & Moe point out, “not all schools in the market will respond equally well to these incentives,” and “those that falter will find it more difficult to attract support, and they will tend to be weeded out in favor of schools that are better organized" (1990).
Competition creates incentive for quality, and the nature of the market system predicates that some competitors will fail to measure up, at least in the initial conversion from our current system, in which a certain sector of popular opinion holds that schools “have almost no incentive to actually make sure that kids are actually learning. As long as they are passing the SOL's and graduate then they accomplish their goal. They get the money from state and federal gov’t and do their thing.” (I claim this as popular opinion because this statement was made by a friend of mine in the midst of an impromptu facebook debate about education policy. Yes, impromptu debates about education policy apparently can be had on facebook.)
Chubb and Moe also proclaim most existing reform attempts insufficient because they still rely on control “from above” and leave “traditional institutions” in place. They say that current attempts free up the demand side of parent choice but not the supply side; that "schools do not emerge in response to what parents and students want." This was written in 1990, but it seems that not much has changed other than the introduction of a few interesting charter school models. I may be underestimating the significance of that change, but I think the questions I am inspired to ask by this article are still important.
I see at least two major obstacles/questions that arise from the competition/market metaphor, which none of the authors we read for this week have really addressed.
1. What will become of the schools that “falter” as they head toward “weeding out”? What will become of their students in the meantime?
2. From where will new schools “emerge” to meet market demands?
Thoughts on the first question: Gill et al. propose including existing private schools in a new charter system as a way to avoid some of the poor outcomes that we see from brand-new schools, but what can we do about the schools that are already failing and may not ever be equipped to catch up? How long will failing schools be allowed to languish? What will happen to the students who remain there? The “clientele” of schools cannot simply transition smoothly to another provider at the very moment service becomes unsatisfactory. Even if the system allowed for relatively instantaneous transfers, students would be disrupted by the sudden change in coursework and environment. I must be exaggerating this potential problem, because I haven’t heard anyone else talk about it. Are there arguments about this? I can think of one, but it’s a weak one: perhaps the schools that will ‘fail’ under the new system will not in fact worsen, but simply fail to improve at the same rates as other schools, so there’s no net loss in school quality, even in the faltering schools. But if we assume that other schools are “cream-skimming,” even unintentionally, I doubt this would be the case.
Thoughts on the second question: Schools do not “emerge.” They are built, in many senses of the word. If we propose to take the idea of school choice beyond choosing between current options, who stands to benefit from becoming a builder of new schools? Presumably, most non-profit organizations that perceive a potential benefit to their communities/constituencies have already created private schools to serve their needs. Gill mentions new for-profit models, but I’m not totally clear on what this would look like. Manhattan's District No. 4 in East Harlem certainly provides a provocative model (see Chubb & Moe, p. 212). But just like we saw with many Deweyan/progressive schools, the creation of these teacher-run “schools” are “entirely dependent on the visionaries themselves and their hold on power." Furthermore, as Chubb & Moe point out, the stakeholders in this system “are [still] subordinates in the hierarchy of democratic control, and what authority they have been privileged to exercise to this point has been delegated to them by their superiors--who have the right to take it back."
Can we consider the implications and possibilities of scaling up such a system? What about adapting the model to one in which teachers can start new schools without relying on their bureaucratic superiors’ revocable grant of power?
I see a lot of question marks scattered throughout my entry; I would love to hear tentative answers or challenges to any and all of them.
Competition creates incentive for quality, and the nature of the market system predicates that some competitors will fail to measure up, at least in the initial conversion from our current system, in which a certain sector of popular opinion holds that schools “have almost no incentive to actually make sure that kids are actually learning. As long as they are passing the SOL's and graduate then they accomplish their goal. They get the money from state and federal gov’t and do their thing.” (I claim this as popular opinion because this statement was made by a friend of mine in the midst of an impromptu facebook debate about education policy. Yes, impromptu debates about education policy apparently can be had on facebook.)
Chubb and Moe also proclaim most existing reform attempts insufficient because they still rely on control “from above” and leave “traditional institutions” in place. They say that current attempts free up the demand side of parent choice but not the supply side; that "schools do not emerge in response to what parents and students want." This was written in 1990, but it seems that not much has changed other than the introduction of a few interesting charter school models. I may be underestimating the significance of that change, but I think the questions I am inspired to ask by this article are still important.
I see at least two major obstacles/questions that arise from the competition/market metaphor, which none of the authors we read for this week have really addressed.
1. What will become of the schools that “falter” as they head toward “weeding out”? What will become of their students in the meantime?
2. From where will new schools “emerge” to meet market demands?
Thoughts on the first question: Gill et al. propose including existing private schools in a new charter system as a way to avoid some of the poor outcomes that we see from brand-new schools, but what can we do about the schools that are already failing and may not ever be equipped to catch up? How long will failing schools be allowed to languish? What will happen to the students who remain there? The “clientele” of schools cannot simply transition smoothly to another provider at the very moment service becomes unsatisfactory. Even if the system allowed for relatively instantaneous transfers, students would be disrupted by the sudden change in coursework and environment. I must be exaggerating this potential problem, because I haven’t heard anyone else talk about it. Are there arguments about this? I can think of one, but it’s a weak one: perhaps the schools that will ‘fail’ under the new system will not in fact worsen, but simply fail to improve at the same rates as other schools, so there’s no net loss in school quality, even in the faltering schools. But if we assume that other schools are “cream-skimming,” even unintentionally, I doubt this would be the case.
Thoughts on the second question: Schools do not “emerge.” They are built, in many senses of the word. If we propose to take the idea of school choice beyond choosing between current options, who stands to benefit from becoming a builder of new schools? Presumably, most non-profit organizations that perceive a potential benefit to their communities/constituencies have already created private schools to serve their needs. Gill mentions new for-profit models, but I’m not totally clear on what this would look like. Manhattan's District No. 4 in East Harlem certainly provides a provocative model (see Chubb & Moe, p. 212). But just like we saw with many Deweyan/progressive schools, the creation of these teacher-run “schools” are “entirely dependent on the visionaries themselves and their hold on power." Furthermore, as Chubb & Moe point out, the stakeholders in this system “are [still] subordinates in the hierarchy of democratic control, and what authority they have been privileged to exercise to this point has been delegated to them by their superiors--who have the right to take it back."
Can we consider the implications and possibilities of scaling up such a system? What about adapting the model to one in which teachers can start new schools without relying on their bureaucratic superiors’ revocable grant of power?
I see a lot of question marks scattered throughout my entry; I would love to hear tentative answers or challenges to any and all of them.
Monday, November 3, 2008
What Not to Wear: The Great Uniform Debate
In alliance with the theme of social justice, I thought it would be interesting to tackle the controversial issue of school uniforms. The debate over school uniforms encompasses more profound issues than simply what children wear to school. It touches on issues of school safety, cultural identity, social classes, and freedom of expression. Some of the major arguments claimed by the opposing sides are listed below:
Pros:
- Help eliminate economic disparities and class distinctions between students
- Increase school pride and sense of belonging
- Decrease gang activity in schools
- Improve learning environment by eliminating distractions
- Less expensive and less clothing to buy
- Intruders easier to spot
- Weapons harder to conceal
Cons:
- Violation of 1st and 9th amendment rights (freedom of speech and right to privacy)
- Loss of individuality
- Expensive
- More in-school suspensions (due to uniform violations)
- Vigorous enforcement can often cause more problems
As with any policy, the issue of school uniforms has created quite a stir locally and nationally. In 2007, Metro Nashville Public Schools adapted Standard School Attire Policy to mixed reviews. The Standard Attire includes black, navy, or khaki slacks, skirts, or shorts as well as navy or white collared long sleeve or short sleeved shirts. A more detailed list of the dress code policy can be viewed here.
Questions to Consider:
What are the implications for this type of uniform policy? Does a dress code eliminate some of the stigmas that come with school uniforms? Do you think uniforms or a dress code are a much needed asset in public schools? Can school uniforms or dress codes help eliminate problems such as bullying, gangs, school violence, and behavior issues or is it a "band-aid" for much deeper social issues? Are school uniforms a form of social justice by creating an "equal playing field" for all students?
Helpful Links:
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tracking and Test-Score Gap, could it work?
Just in advance, this post is more designed to inspire talk, because I wish to see what everyone has to say about this rather heated topic.
As Maureen Hallinan has so properly pointed out to us, tracking is a system in which theory is designed to focus the education of the student by pairing them into similar groups of knowledge and ability. This sounds like a great solution to help bring up the overall grades of a failing school. Use this program to target those kids that are in the most need of help and provide them with special attention to help improve their intelligence while not making the students who are at the higher end of the level bored and lose interest.
With this concept, not only are students being helped out but the job is easier on the teacher as well. With tracking no longer will you have students who vary widely in their test scores, but you can focus on a particular group, because that group is the only group within your classroom.
This sounds great! However, with this (in practice) has become a huge issue involving segregation and many other issues at hand. Hallinan does a very comprehensive job explaining all of the pros, cons, and ways to improve the tracking system to make it a better and more effective system.
The question I pose to everyone is this. Can tracking help failing schools and improve the test-score gap? While the social aspects of "segregating" the low SES and ethnic children into the lower level classes is a monsterous issue, would not the benefits of allowing these students to move at their own pace out number these in the long run? Or does tracking involve the opposite and simply further increase the test-score gap as smart kids get smarter while the lower tracked kids just try to keep up?
As Maureen Hallinan has so properly pointed out to us, tracking is a system in which theory is designed to focus the education of the student by pairing them into similar groups of knowledge and ability. This sounds like a great solution to help bring up the overall grades of a failing school. Use this program to target those kids that are in the most need of help and provide them with special attention to help improve their intelligence while not making the students who are at the higher end of the level bored and lose interest.
With this concept, not only are students being helped out but the job is easier on the teacher as well. With tracking no longer will you have students who vary widely in their test scores, but you can focus on a particular group, because that group is the only group within your classroom.
This sounds great! However, with this (in practice) has become a huge issue involving segregation and many other issues at hand. Hallinan does a very comprehensive job explaining all of the pros, cons, and ways to improve the tracking system to make it a better and more effective system.
The question I pose to everyone is this. Can tracking help failing schools and improve the test-score gap? While the social aspects of "segregating" the low SES and ethnic children into the lower level classes is a monsterous issue, would not the benefits of allowing these students to move at their own pace out number these in the long run? Or does tracking involve the opposite and simply further increase the test-score gap as smart kids get smarter while the lower tracked kids just try to keep up?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Financial Equality Not The Answer
School funding comes from a number of sources, but the main source is property tax. The more your house is worth, the more your school should recieve. Money has been seen as an tool used to create inequality in the schools and has been manipulated to correct inequalities. In 1965, Congress passed Title 1 in which over $100 billion has been dispensed to school districts with high concentrations of "impoverished" students (Traub, 55). Lawsuits and court decisions have also attempt to equalize spending amoung schools and districts. Many of these results have had mixed reviews, but they are also hard to track because of the complex nature of gather the information. Equalilizing the school finance system will not necessarily lead to more equality in educational opportunity. Even if spending per pupil was the same accross the nation, inequalities would still exist.
"A child living in an inner city is in school for only so many hours. It's the rest of the day- as well as the rest of the neighborhood- that's the big influence and the problem," -James Traub.
Unfortunately, schools are not equal because communities, families, and students are not equal. Students face a plethora of challenges in inner cities as vividly shown in Amazing Grace. Youth witnessing murders, drug use, parents dying of AIDS, who have a lack of sleep, health care, safety, sanitation, and confidence are on unequal grounds before the first bell rings. Not to say that amazing things cannot happen, but that is what it is, amazing, when it does happen.
The government has so much money, as do the communities in which they are attempting to assist. With the Colman Report, maybe this money should focus on the social aspects that contiune this vicisous cycle. Reforming the spending on per pupil might sound great but if the greatest hinderance to a child success happens out of school, pumping more money into schools might just be putting bandaids on a gunshot wound. Schools cannot and should not be seen as the insititution that can cure the social ills all by itself.
"A child living in an inner city is in school for only so many hours. It's the rest of the day- as well as the rest of the neighborhood- that's the big influence and the problem," -James Traub.
Unfortunately, schools are not equal because communities, families, and students are not equal. Students face a plethora of challenges in inner cities as vividly shown in Amazing Grace. Youth witnessing murders, drug use, parents dying of AIDS, who have a lack of sleep, health care, safety, sanitation, and confidence are on unequal grounds before the first bell rings. Not to say that amazing things cannot happen, but that is what it is, amazing, when it does happen.
The government has so much money, as do the communities in which they are attempting to assist. With the Colman Report, maybe this money should focus on the social aspects that contiune this vicisous cycle. Reforming the spending on per pupil might sound great but if the greatest hinderance to a child success happens out of school, pumping more money into schools might just be putting bandaids on a gunshot wound. Schools cannot and should not be seen as the insititution that can cure the social ills all by itself.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Families, Communities and Schools: Why aren't parents involved?
The school will teach children how to read, but the environment of the home must teach them what to read. The school can teach them how to think, but the home must teach them what to believe. - Charles A. Wells
Successful family involvement is not a sporadic activity. It is a sustained commitment to instill the habits of learning and to set high expectations. It is making connections to teachers and schools not only when trouble arises, but as a part of the everyday process of children’s schooling. - U.S. Secretary of Education
The above quotes express what all of this week’s authors seemed to agree upon- the importance of parental involvement in today’s school systems. In Lareau’s article she states that parental behavior is a major factor in educational performance, and that teachers have now made it a priority to increase participation (Lareau 1987). Hoover Dempsey and Sandler state that “parental involvement in child and adolescent education generally benefits children’s learning and school success (Hoover –Dempsey, Sandler 1997). There has been a lot of discussion about ways and methods to get parents involved in the education of their children, but I’d rather not focus on that right now. I’d like for us to discuss reasons why we think parents aren’t as involved as they could and should be.
Lareau mentioned three major reasons for the lack of parental involvement in society. The first was the culture poverty-thesis, which basically suggests that lower and working class families do not value education as much as middle and upper class families do. The second placed the blame on individual schools, saying that they make middle class families feel more welcome than working and lower class families. Also included in this second reason is the individual teacher and his or her leadership capabilities. The third reason mentioned involves cultural capital and differing social and cultural experiences among educational leaders and parents (1997).
Maybe we need to first start with what we think parental involvement should look like. One example is the Caswell County Training School, the focus of the article by Emilie V. Siddle Walker. The article described the school as being driven by parent and community involvement. Parents were involved in pretty much every aspect of the school, from student transportation to providing student and teacher resources, to facility expansion. PTA meetings at the school were frequently filled to capacity and teachers were required to attend. Mandatory attendance for teachers meant that parents knew that any issues they needed to address with their child’s teacher could be brought up before or after the meetings. Could this have led to a sense of empowerment for parents that may be lacking now?
What do you think? Is the Caswell County Training School an accurate picture of how involved you think parents should be, or is too extreme? Do you think Lareau’s reasons are valid in explaining the lack of parental involvement today? Do you think that parents have less of an influence on their children now than in decades past, so maybe they feel investing in their educations will be fruitless? I’m including this link to a 45 second video of a parent who puts the blame on educators- video. Do you think she's right? I’m interested to see what everyone thinks!
related links
--------------------
http://life.familyeducation.com/peer-pressure/self-image/36377.html
http://www.plti-alex.org/
http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/adolescence-are-parents-relevant-to-students-high-school-achievement-and-post-secondary-attainment
Successful family involvement is not a sporadic activity. It is a sustained commitment to instill the habits of learning and to set high expectations. It is making connections to teachers and schools not only when trouble arises, but as a part of the everyday process of children’s schooling. - U.S. Secretary of Education
The above quotes express what all of this week’s authors seemed to agree upon- the importance of parental involvement in today’s school systems. In Lareau’s article she states that parental behavior is a major factor in educational performance, and that teachers have now made it a priority to increase participation (Lareau 1987). Hoover Dempsey and Sandler state that “parental involvement in child and adolescent education generally benefits children’s learning and school success (Hoover –Dempsey, Sandler 1997). There has been a lot of discussion about ways and methods to get parents involved in the education of their children, but I’d rather not focus on that right now. I’d like for us to discuss reasons why we think parents aren’t as involved as they could and should be.
Lareau mentioned three major reasons for the lack of parental involvement in society. The first was the culture poverty-thesis, which basically suggests that lower and working class families do not value education as much as middle and upper class families do. The second placed the blame on individual schools, saying that they make middle class families feel more welcome than working and lower class families. Also included in this second reason is the individual teacher and his or her leadership capabilities. The third reason mentioned involves cultural capital and differing social and cultural experiences among educational leaders and parents (1997).
Maybe we need to first start with what we think parental involvement should look like. One example is the Caswell County Training School, the focus of the article by Emilie V. Siddle Walker. The article described the school as being driven by parent and community involvement. Parents were involved in pretty much every aspect of the school, from student transportation to providing student and teacher resources, to facility expansion. PTA meetings at the school were frequently filled to capacity and teachers were required to attend. Mandatory attendance for teachers meant that parents knew that any issues they needed to address with their child’s teacher could be brought up before or after the meetings. Could this have led to a sense of empowerment for parents that may be lacking now?
What do you think? Is the Caswell County Training School an accurate picture of how involved you think parents should be, or is too extreme? Do you think Lareau’s reasons are valid in explaining the lack of parental involvement today? Do you think that parents have less of an influence on their children now than in decades past, so maybe they feel investing in their educations will be fruitless? I’m including this link to a 45 second video of a parent who puts the blame on educators- video. Do you think she's right? I’m interested to see what everyone thinks!
related links
--------------------
http://life.familyeducation.com/peer-pressure/self-image/36377.html
http://www.plti-alex.org/
http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/adolescence-are-parents-relevant-to-students-high-school-achievement-and-post-secondary-attainment
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Open Topic: Parents are Needed
“If parents value schooling and think it is important, then kids take it seriously.”
-- Prescott School Principal, 1987
“The former slaves’ fundamental belief in the value of literate culture was expressed most clearly in their efforts to secure schooling for themselves and their children.”
-- J. Anderson, 1988
Many studies have shown the benefits of parental involvement in children’s education. This week we read about the effect it can have on children’s academic success and on the reasons behind why parents do or do not become involved in participating.
In Annette Lareau’s study on “Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationships: The Importance of Social Capital,” she found that overall parents from a middle-class school were much more involved with the school and had a more interdependent relationship, compared to the independent relationship she observed in a working-class school (1987).
Furthermore, Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey and Howard Sandler look at the reasons behind why parents “become involved in their children’s education” (1997). Basically, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler found that schools need to not only invite parents to become involved in the school, but they also need to address what individual parents’ role construction (their idea of what and how a parent should be involved) and sense of efficacy for even wanting to help their children in school.
How can schools invite parents to participate, encourage parents to take a more active role in their child’s schooling and actually help parents believe that they can make a difference?
Over the course of the semester, we have learned about the evolution of schools and how they began in one-room school houses (with the teachers living in a family’s home) and progressed to the current education system we have in place now. Although it has not always been explicit, we have seen examples of parents taking an active role in educating their children. When the freed slaves wanted to educate themselves and their children they rallied together and started schools with their own money; education to them meant “liberation and freedom” (Anderson, 1988). Today, how can parents of all different backgrounds “prove” that they value education?
In comparing schools, Lareau observed that the parents from the middle-class school took a very active role in participating; they attended Open Houses, read to their children on a regular basis, and knew a lot about their child and their classroom. Unfortunately, she did not find nearly as much commitment from the working-class parents.
Pierre Bourdieu would remark that cultural capital influences the amount of involvement by the parents (1973). Transportation, time off from work, access to Internet and other resources all make parental involvement a lot easier for the middle-class parents compared to the working-class parents. Bourdieu would suggest that schools should openly teach parents how to become involved and expose the educational system’s hidden expectations. However, Lareau urges that further research needs to be conducted to truly understand the effects of cultural capital.
If we believe Bourdieu, and believe that students whose parents are involved benefit more and achieve higher success, then don’t we, as future educators, need to reinvent creative ways for teachers and school administrators to involve all parents, of all backgrounds, to become involved in their child’s education? Lareau states:
“It is important to stress that if the schools were to promote a different type of family-school relationship, the class culture of middle-class parents might not yield a social profit. The data do not reveal that the social relations of middle-class culture are intrinsically better than the social relations of working-class culture...Instead, the social profitability of middle-class arrangements is tied to the schools' definition of the proper family-school relationship” (p. 82, 1987).Is there a way to help all parents to take a more active role in education, regardless of their own personal educational and occupational position?
Local Situation:
Currently, Metro Schools has school level, cluster level and a Parent Advisory Board to involve parents in the schools. At the school level, Metro lists a wide range of possible ways to be involved: sports events, parent groups, cafeteria and bus duty and more (http://www.mnps.org/Page2779.aspx). Additionally, the cluster level involves key parents from each school within a certain cluster (geographic location). The goal of clusters is to share ideas between schools and try to improve the city’s schools. Are these levels enough for all parents, or are these levels further encouraging a divide between the parents who have the time to attend the meetings and volunteer and the ones who have to work full-time and are unable to volunteer?
I am not arguing that increasing parental involvement is the silver bullet to our education system. But I have to wonder, what would our education system look like if all parents did take a more active role? What defines an "active role?" A few weeks ago, Zach and Nicole led us in a discussion about the “ideal classroom” inspired from reading John Dewey. Looking back, would increased parental involvement be one of the necessities for that ideal school?
Other interesting links:
http://www.tnpta.org/
http://www.ptotoday.com/index.php
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KOC/is_/ai_n21093607
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
FYI: From the Nashville Post
School rezoning plan will save less than anticipated
Anticipated savings down to $1.2 million
Board members, at the time the plan was approved, were told the rezoning plan would save about $2 million through the closing of certain schools with smaller attendance numbers. That number is down to $1.2 million, according to an initial estimate released by the district.
Because the school board has promised $4.7 million in improvements to schools affected by the rezoning - in particular Pearl-Cohn High - there is a gap of approximately $3.5 million for the next fiscal year. That gap does not factor in capital costs, which could be extensive considering Wharton and Madison schools both need significant renovations.
Neither does it factor in transportation costs, according to Interim Director Chris Henson. Additionally, the $4.7 million promised by the board assumes a differentiated pay for teachers of 5 percent.
No matter how large the gap ends up because of additional costs, the board members remained committed to writing it into the next budget.
"There is no room for interpretation here," board member Steve Glover said. "We have said, as a board, this is going to be a part of the budget package. We have said, pretty clearly, this will be a part of it. It's not negotiable."
Several board members said it was their obligation to provide the funds promised when the rezoning plan was passed in order to ease tension in the community. Some have called the plan a "re-segregation" plan because it makes certain schools less diverse.
"Generally out there, there's a trust issue with government in general and with the school board in particular," board member Mark North said. "My position on dealing with distrust is that the only way to do it is to be trustworthy.
"And we're going to do what we say we're going to do. When we make commitments, we stand by them. We plan to fulfill them."
The work session also included discussion for how to communicate to parents the changes as a result of the plan. Communicating changes as a result of the rezoning plan could begin in November.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The American Lie
Is it not true that, like all good Horatio Alger novels, the only thing standing in the way of unlimited success for each individual is a little initiative and a whole lot of elbow grease (whatever that is)?
Though the collective American consciousness holds firmly to the optimistic “American Dream” that initiative and hard work are the only ingredients needed for unlimited social mobility, the true reality is that every individual is constrained by numerous factors outside of his or her control that dictate economic and social outcomes. Think about your own life for a moment. There is a good chance you, along with every other person in our class, was dealt a pretty decent hand of privilege cards (likely middle to high class, with educated parents, and a cute dog named skip). What if you had been born the child of newly arrived illegal immigrant parents with little schooling, no advantageous social connections, and with no savings? Would it be likely that you would be part of this class and participating in this blog about social stratification and education? Doubtful (though there are always extraordinary exceptions to every generalized rule, let us focus on the rule and not the exception).
The point is that no matter how “fair,” “equal,” and “democratic” we believe America to be, there exists a well-defined social & economic hierarchy that is very difficult to advance in (there have been numerous studies that have reported the limited occurrences of true social mobility). And if you are like me, after this week’s readings you have now been awaken to the chilling reality that the great “democratic” American educational system is in fact one of the primary forces that preserve this inherently unequal and undemocratic structure in America.
The Practical Modern Debates:
1. High-Stakes Testing.
In brief, one of the strongest arguments against high-stakes testing is that they are biased towards the dominant culture, and thus necessarily handicap individuals not in line with dominant culture. Studies have shown that high-stakes tests often test more accurately for cultural capital than intellectual capital, thereby limiting educational mobility and preserving the status quo.
2. Narrowing the Achievement Gap.
Much of the debate concerning the achievement gap has focused on the perceived deficiencies in individual students and their cultures, thus placing the blame directly on the students for their failure. Though helpful in some ways, this outlook ignores the dramatic roles that schools play in contributing to the failure of minority students. The readings seem to lend viewing minority divergent from the dominant culture as different rather than deficient, and thus placing on educators the responsibility of explicitly equipping students with the skills and dispositions needed to succeed in the dominant culture.
Questions to think about and discuss.
- Do you agree with the authors that educational systems inconspicuously reproduce social and economic classes? Defend your answer.
- What implicit values, skills, and dispositions are needed in order to succeed in the American educational system? Why are these necessary and not others? Provide specific examples of how minority cultures differ in regards to the values, skills, and dispositions necessary to succeed in school. How can schools and educators explicitly teach these values, skills, and dispositions in order to promote minority student achievement?
- Is it possible to create a standardized test that is not culturally biased? If so, how? If not, what can be done to increase the equity of the test for members of minority cultures?
- Can you identify any other modern educational debates and/or issues that these readings apply to?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Open Topic: Alternative Education?
Given our discussion of Dewey last week, the readings we have studied regarding democracy and education, and the question I had about home schooling, I wanted to look into a few alternatives to the public school system currently in place. Since there are a number of issues surrounding any sort of alternative, I have focused on two alternatives: home school and one non-traditional school. I realize that there are other forms of alternative education, including charter schools, schools set up specifically for disruptive children, military schools, art schools, and even special education. “Alternative education” is really a term to mean anything that isn’t traditional. What I want to focus on here is “alternative education” that is relatively comparable to a public school, specifically RMSEL (to be defined later).
1. Home school: Obviously, home school is one alternative to the public school system that does not require the same monetary investment needed to send a child to a private school with high tuition. Home school lacks many of the ideals of both Dewey and James Bryant Conant since it places children in a very isolated environment in order to complete their education. However, home schooling also has the potential to open doors that public education cannot. Robert Reinhold’s article “Class Struggle” placed great emphasis on the debate surrounding a new series of social studies texts. The new textbooks are greatly needed to address the diversity of American society, yet how can everybody be pleased? Even though there was much debate surrounding the new textbooks, “critics and admirers alike agree that the new books are superior to the soporific history texts used by generations of American students” (Reinhold, pg 89). I mention this in the section I’ve devoted to home schooling because, although parents who home school are required to teach certain subjects based on a state’s specific policies, there is no assigned textbook. This means that parents have the opportunity to present the whole story to their children/pupils, without worrying about whether a book is going to offend anyone. The potential is great, yet whether it is fully realized is hard to judge. That depends on the parents’ values, and what the parents want to teach their children. Is it likely that every parent who home schools will choose reading materials that present a diverse point of view of history, social morals, or religion, so that a child can put the pieces of the puzzle together for him/herself?
The other potential in home schooling is the ability to teach to the child. What I mean by this is that a curriculum can be entirely structured for a child’s specific learning style without being tied by NCLB standards, and there is greater potential to take the child out into the “real world” for learning purposes. Lisa Rivero put it nicely: “John Dewey's contributions to ideas of progressive education were monumental, but what has struck me most strongly in the context of home schooling is his emphasis on the child's experience and his call to understand the roles of subject matter and organization within rather than apart from that experience. If we watch our children, we see how their experience of the world is both rich in content and progressively structured from within” (http://www.besthomeschooling.org/articles/lisa_rivero.html).
The problem, however, lies in the environment. Home schools can isolate children if the parents aren’t part of a home schooling network. Thus, Dewey’s concept of teaching children in a manner that can be incorporated into real life falls to the wayside when the child is not “socialized”.
2. Alternative Education: The Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning, or RMSEL, is a public K-12 school in Denver, CO, that falls under the category of “alternative education”. Some jokingly call it the “hippy school”, or “hippy high” for the high school portion, mainly because of the strong association with the Outward Bound program. The mission of the school can be found on their website http://www.rmsel.org/ , but I would like to point out the strong focus on “engaging learning”. The students learn through everyday situations, in a very Dewey-esque manner. Children learn by being taken out into the world, and little time is devoted to classroom learning. However, the actual education that is received by the students is mocked by the very graduates themselves. I asked a graduate of RMSEL what he learned, and he responded: “nothing. I don’t even know basic algebra, but I know how to keep from getting lost in Mexico” (Xander Likes, class of 2003). This particular student even decided to take summer classes after graduation to better prepare him for a college education that he decided not to pursue out of fear. The transfer rate is also high, because parents fear their child’s lack of basic math, science, and history will prevent them from getting into college (thanks to Laura Lisk, mother of a middle-school transfer). Dewey’s ideas are so strongly incorporated into this school, where the children are engaged and learn in life situations as opposed to sitting in class, yet somehow the perception is that basic expectations of knowledge that are still important are ignored. Actual statistics show that the average ACT score of a RMSEL student is higher than the state average, so the knowledge is there. Why is it that students and parents alike don’t feel that the school provides an appropriate education?
3: Bringing the two together: Academics and Socialization: John L. Rury described high school life from a social point of view in his article “Democracy’s High School? Social Change and American Secondary Education in the Post-Conant Era”. What struck me in particular was his description of the students’ desire for self-expression. “These [cultural] developments were abetted by a general movement to expand students’ rights in high schools across the country. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, wherein it ruled that a suspension of two students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War represented a violation of their First Amendment rights (Zirkel, 1999). Tinker set off a wave of litigation that soon broadened the definition of self-expression to include everything from dress to hairstyles,…” (Rury, pg 315-316). In the context of using school to promote democracy, which has been studied in many of our readings thus far, Rury’s description of the student seems to portray a success in the education system. Since democracy is a goal of education, and is considered an important aspect of everyday American life, can we assume that promoting democracy in schools is a something that Dewey himself would approve? If so, then home schooling has another problem, since “democracy demands diversity and requires deliberation and discussion to flourish” (Rury, 309). Even Conant felt that a diverse class that promotes debate over current issues was necessary to promote democracy (Rury, pg 308). At the same time, however, “democracy requires discipline in addition to individual or group expression and a willingness to abide by …conventions that are collectively determined” (Rury, 317). Both concepts of democracy are in conflict with the education systems promoted by home schooling and by RMSEL. Is there a way to combine the benefits of home school and RMSEL to create a school that is Deweyan and provides students with proper knowledge to succeed in life?
Some websites that you might find interesting in the study of alternative education:
http://www.aaengroup.com/about.htm
http://www.urban.org/publications/411283.html
http://www.besthomeschooling.org/
http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=5
-Michelle M. B. Lilly
1. Home school: Obviously, home school is one alternative to the public school system that does not require the same monetary investment needed to send a child to a private school with high tuition. Home school lacks many of the ideals of both Dewey and James Bryant Conant since it places children in a very isolated environment in order to complete their education. However, home schooling also has the potential to open doors that public education cannot. Robert Reinhold’s article “Class Struggle” placed great emphasis on the debate surrounding a new series of social studies texts. The new textbooks are greatly needed to address the diversity of American society, yet how can everybody be pleased? Even though there was much debate surrounding the new textbooks, “critics and admirers alike agree that the new books are superior to the soporific history texts used by generations of American students” (Reinhold, pg 89). I mention this in the section I’ve devoted to home schooling because, although parents who home school are required to teach certain subjects based on a state’s specific policies, there is no assigned textbook. This means that parents have the opportunity to present the whole story to their children/pupils, without worrying about whether a book is going to offend anyone. The potential is great, yet whether it is fully realized is hard to judge. That depends on the parents’ values, and what the parents want to teach their children. Is it likely that every parent who home schools will choose reading materials that present a diverse point of view of history, social morals, or religion, so that a child can put the pieces of the puzzle together for him/herself?
The other potential in home schooling is the ability to teach to the child. What I mean by this is that a curriculum can be entirely structured for a child’s specific learning style without being tied by NCLB standards, and there is greater potential to take the child out into the “real world” for learning purposes. Lisa Rivero put it nicely: “John Dewey's contributions to ideas of progressive education were monumental, but what has struck me most strongly in the context of home schooling is his emphasis on the child's experience and his call to understand the roles of subject matter and organization within rather than apart from that experience. If we watch our children, we see how their experience of the world is both rich in content and progressively structured from within” (http://www.besthomeschooling.org/articles/lisa_rivero.html).
The problem, however, lies in the environment. Home schools can isolate children if the parents aren’t part of a home schooling network. Thus, Dewey’s concept of teaching children in a manner that can be incorporated into real life falls to the wayside when the child is not “socialized”.
2. Alternative Education: The Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning, or RMSEL, is a public K-12 school in Denver, CO, that falls under the category of “alternative education”. Some jokingly call it the “hippy school”, or “hippy high” for the high school portion, mainly because of the strong association with the Outward Bound program. The mission of the school can be found on their website http://www.rmsel.org/ , but I would like to point out the strong focus on “engaging learning”. The students learn through everyday situations, in a very Dewey-esque manner. Children learn by being taken out into the world, and little time is devoted to classroom learning. However, the actual education that is received by the students is mocked by the very graduates themselves. I asked a graduate of RMSEL what he learned, and he responded: “nothing. I don’t even know basic algebra, but I know how to keep from getting lost in Mexico” (Xander Likes, class of 2003). This particular student even decided to take summer classes after graduation to better prepare him for a college education that he decided not to pursue out of fear. The transfer rate is also high, because parents fear their child’s lack of basic math, science, and history will prevent them from getting into college (thanks to Laura Lisk, mother of a middle-school transfer). Dewey’s ideas are so strongly incorporated into this school, where the children are engaged and learn in life situations as opposed to sitting in class, yet somehow the perception is that basic expectations of knowledge that are still important are ignored. Actual statistics show that the average ACT score of a RMSEL student is higher than the state average, so the knowledge is there. Why is it that students and parents alike don’t feel that the school provides an appropriate education?
3: Bringing the two together: Academics and Socialization: John L. Rury described high school life from a social point of view in his article “Democracy’s High School? Social Change and American Secondary Education in the Post-Conant Era”. What struck me in particular was his description of the students’ desire for self-expression. “These [cultural] developments were abetted by a general movement to expand students’ rights in high schools across the country. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, wherein it ruled that a suspension of two students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War represented a violation of their First Amendment rights (Zirkel, 1999). Tinker set off a wave of litigation that soon broadened the definition of self-expression to include everything from dress to hairstyles,…” (Rury, pg 315-316). In the context of using school to promote democracy, which has been studied in many of our readings thus far, Rury’s description of the student seems to portray a success in the education system. Since democracy is a goal of education, and is considered an important aspect of everyday American life, can we assume that promoting democracy in schools is a something that Dewey himself would approve? If so, then home schooling has another problem, since “democracy demands diversity and requires deliberation and discussion to flourish” (Rury, 309). Even Conant felt that a diverse class that promotes debate over current issues was necessary to promote democracy (Rury, pg 308). At the same time, however, “democracy requires discipline in addition to individual or group expression and a willingness to abide by …conventions that are collectively determined” (Rury, 317). Both concepts of democracy are in conflict with the education systems promoted by home schooling and by RMSEL. Is there a way to combine the benefits of home school and RMSEL to create a school that is Deweyan and provides students with proper knowledge to succeed in life?
Some websites that you might find interesting in the study of alternative education:
http://www.aaengroup.com/about.htm
http://www.urban.org/publications/411283.html
http://www.besthomeschooling.org/
http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=5
-Michelle M. B. Lilly
Melting Pot
Most Americans value and take pride in our melting pot of cultures, ethnicities, races and religions. American culture is formed from the assimilation of the diverse ideals and beliefs from these different groups. Our readings this week bring out the dilemmas of our pluralistic society. The articles tackle the issues of the distance an individual or group takes our freedoms in the religious, political or racial sectors and poses the question: Do we decide on a common standard of freedom to apply in the educational system and if so, how much of a standard are we able to enforce?
Amy Gutmann believes that our pluralist nation should find a common thread and focus that commonness on a democracy in education that demands respect of others’ beliefs and allows us to critically reflect on our own culture. She desires to find the one, morally best way of coping” ( 2) with our differences in order to value democracy. A. Wolfe agrees with Gutmann that we should have a “guided pluralism” and that those people that value virtue should give into those that value freedom. He also mentions another scholar names Rosenblum and her contrasting idea of a “hands-off” behavior to pluralism. She states that any private association (religious schools, churches, minority groups etc) should continue to function on its own. According to Rosenblum, these associations will still provide moral benefits. With these differing views of how to handle pluralism, I have to ask, “Which method will best handle our current diverse society? Should we try to maintain a common standard or should we enact a sort of laissez- faire ideology and agree to disagree without any regulatory involvement?
These issues of diversity and questions of how to handle it lead us to the discussions I found interesting ( and controversial) in Steele’s article. Like Guttman who believes that a “state of individuals” cannot form a cohesive path to mutual respect, Steele breaches the idea of “collective entitlement”. He sees that some strives for diversity from certain groups (such as women and African-Americans) have lead to a sense on entitlement which will ultimately result in a feeling of sovereignty, autonomy and eventually inequality and exclusion. I have difficulty tackling this issue. Like Steele, I agree with the notion of appreciating diversity but also question the benefits of an exclusionary, entitled view without any respect for the opinion of others. If equality is what all groups strive for, how far is too far to take our notion of freedom? If we end up segregating ourselves (like in the example of women’s studies department and ethnic dorms), should we try to re-integrate and how do we turn 180 degrees and re-integrate to form a collective yet diverse society?
I want to shift a little from these questions to the background of diversity in schools. Rury’s article focuses on the fact that a democracy in schools must “demand diversity and require deliberation and discussion to flourish”( 309). He argues that in our current culture, ensuring diversity in a high school is hard to maintain. His factors of youth culture and the increase of suburbia attribute to the change in views of democracy in schools. His notions on the effects of youth culture in schools and society remind me of a recent episode of “Mad Men” ( see link below). “Mad Men is a show about an advertising agency set in the 1960s which depicts the current issues, dilemmas, and behavior common during this decade. The advertisers realize the growing strength of the youth culture and want to “capture the attention of youth” in their coffee commercials. The youth brought in to help in this endeavor are quoted as saying, “We don’t want to be told how to live and act. We just want to be… We want to feel.” The strength and appreciation of this culture dominates society in the 60s. On the whole, isn’t it still this way today? Are schools adjusting to the youth culture in their curriculum and structure?
On Rury’s topic of the rise of suburbia and the resulting racial segregation, does our nation still purposefully segregate neighborhoods along the lines of ethnicity and race? Or, are the neighborhoods separated solely by class, like a caste system? Do our lending laws help in this regard? I hope and have a feeling that the questions asked in the weekly articles and the blog will lead to an animated discussion.
Related sites:
http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lending/index.cfm Fair Lending
http://138.23.124.165/exhibitions/suburbia/# Great Suburbia pictures
http://www.cpyu.org/ Site for parents on youth culture
EdWeek live chat
Hi everybody,
I know that most of you already subscribe to EdWeek and get their, ahem, frequent e-mail updates, but I wanted to bring this to the class attention:
This week's live chat: Adding More Time for Learning
The chat will take place on Wednesday, September 24, 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern time, and EdWeek is currently accepting questions for the chat.
It looks like the discussion will relate directly to what we discussed in our "ideal classroom" exercise, particularly the issues surrounding year-round schooling. It also might touch on some of the things we discussed in the comments for last week's blog post.
See you all tomorrow night at the Board meeting!
I know that most of you already subscribe to EdWeek and get their, ahem, frequent e-mail updates, but I wanted to bring this to the class attention:
This week's live chat: Adding More Time for Learning
The chat will take place on Wednesday, September 24, 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern time, and EdWeek is currently accepting questions for the chat.
It looks like the discussion will relate directly to what we discussed in our "ideal classroom" exercise, particularly the issues surrounding year-round schooling. It also might touch on some of the things we discussed in the comments for last week's blog post.
See you all tomorrow night at the Board meeting!
Monday, September 15, 2008
The School and Today's Society
“From the standpoint of the child, the great waste in the school comes from his inability to utilize the experiences he gets outside the school in any complete and free way within the school itself; while, on the other hand, he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school.” (Dewey 1900)
How do we connect school and the “real world”? Is that even a valid endeavor? How much of learning must be applicable and how much should learning have value in and of itself? I don’t think Dewey is arguing against the intrinsic value of knowledge but suggesting that connecting information to experience is an effective way to learn. But maybe not. Maybe he is only advocating the kind of education that is practical for everyday life.
“Why hasn’t Dewey’s influence as an educator been as widespread and enduring as he and others had initially hoped it would be? Why haven’t more of his ideas been put into practice?” (Jackson 1990)
Jackson posed this question in 1990, when this edition of The School and Society was published. I would like to ask it again about today’s school system: To what extent are Dewey’s ideas used in today’s schools? Are they applicable? Could they be used more? What would that look like?
I found a few sites about Dewey and today’s schools:
The New Progressivism Is Here
The New Progressivism Is Here
and Envision Schools in California, which “adopt project-based teaching, helping to engage and motivate students by making their course work relevant to the ‘real world’”
I thought Chapter 6, or “The Black Public High School and the Reproduction of Caste in the Urban South, 1880 – 1935,” was interesting in light of Dewey. What is the distinction between Dewey’s insistence on occupation in the classroom, for instance the children working with textiles, and the industrial training proposed by white southerners in an attempt to keep blacks “in their place”? Is education, or the withholding of it, still used as a means of control today?
Both Chapters 5 and 6 of The Education of Blacks in the South, like Chapter 1 in last week’s reading, focused on the efforts of African-Americans to provide quality education for their children, despite much opposition.
“Rural black southerners, living in a cash-short economy and virtually disfranchised by public school authorities, paid from their limited resources a tremendous private cost for their ‘public’ education.” (Anderson 1988) 
“Rural blacks were forced to take from their meager incomes and contribute money to the construction and maintenance of public schools for black children because southern state and local governments refused to accept responsibility for black public education.” (Anderson 1988)
Despite the efforts of white Southerners, including the local and state governments, to withhold access to quality education for black children and despite the poverty in which they themselves were living, black southerners united to build and support thousands of schools (though many were eventually defeated by Great Depression and lack of financial support). The African-Americans of that time realized that they had to take control of their education. They couldn’t rely on the government to provide education for them; if they didn’t do it themselves, no one would.
The black southerners were able to accomplish so much with so little because they put education first. If they didn’t have money, they donated time or building materials. Anderson mentioned one man who mortgaged his house to fund the completion of the school, and he didn’t even have children!
How much of the education problem in America is due to bad policy? How much can we blame on the government? And how much is the result of society simply not caring? I think this is an issue that has been discussed to some length in earlier blog comments, but it’s such a big issue, especially in light of this week’s reading. How do we get people to care about education?
In Education Week: How Cincinnati Turned Its Schools Around, Joe Nathan discusses how the improvement of the Cincinnati school system, which, “as of 2007, eliminated the gap between African-American and white students in graduation rates” (his emphasis). This was accomplished, in part, because the school district forged partnerships with corporations, universities, and foundations. One of these was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/Education/), whose support of education reminded me of the Julius Rosenwald Fund discussed in the Anderson reading. The involvement of these private organizations and philanthropists seems to improve education. Should we focus more on getting this type of support for schools, perhaps from local businesses and charities, rather than attempt to fix education through the federal government? How much control does government have over education, anyway? In what Anderson terms “The Second Crusade,” the local and state governments did their best to withhold education from black southerners, but, because they understood the vital importance of education for their children, the black southerners came together to make sure their children could go to school. Many people today care about education. But are we willing to make the same kind of sacrifices as the black southerners of the early 20th century? Or will we allow our apathy to rule us and be forever defined by mediocrity? (I'm promise I'm not actually trying to sound like a high school valedictorian, just trying to incite thought)
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Common School Movement and Today
The common school movement had many issues that are still discussed today. The pendulum swings back and forth with no finial answer. Some of these issues are:
A) Control and Choice:
“Advocates of compulsory schooling often argued that families were failing to carry out their traditional functions or moral and vocational training.” (Tyack 1976)
In other words it is time for the government to take control from the families and schools are now responsible for moral and vocational training. This is a discussion that happened during the common school movement and still is discussed. Barrack Obama is for the “Zero to Five Plan” that will “provide critical support to young children and their parents… move toward universal pre-school” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education). By instating this type of plan we are saying that the parents do not have the tools to prepare children for schooling. Where as McCain debates that “public education should be defined as one in which our public support for a child’s education follows that child into the school the parent chooses” (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/19ce50b5-daa8-4795-b92d-92bd0d985bca.htm).
Where does that control lie? Who is molding the children of our nation?
B) Role of Education:
“Americans had enormous faith in the power of schooling to transform all kinds of people – even “enemies” – into citizens.” (Tyack 1976)
Immigration and language differences… Do we keep their old culture or assimilate it into ours? Do we insist on the students becoming fluent in English or can we have a multilingual nation?
“… education not only produced good character and multiplied knowledge but that it is also the most prolific of material riches… Education enabled people to become rational decision makers by comprehending… school made workers punctual, industrious, frugal, and too rational to cause trouble for their employers.” (Tyack 1976)
“…both saw teachers and other intellectual workers mostly as servants of vested interest but believed that educators could become an important means of spreading the light for socialism.” (Tyack 1976)
What is the goal of our education system? Are we training our citizens to become a person who fills a role or one who is a free thinker?
You do not hear the argument very often of how our tax dollars are directly affecting our education system by putting them into schools. If we were to discuss the direct connection between the tax dollar and outcomes of education there might be an increase in support towards the rising educational costs? If people were able to see the direct connection they might be driven to develop the citizens that will produce some revenue in the future. This argument might also go back to tracking towards certain vocations because there would not be “wasted” investments in educating specific students. And that leads us back to what type of students are we producing through our schools?
“Children learn that liberty was their most cherished possession and their birthright as Americans.” (Tyack 1976)
Do we just deserve the rights we are born with or do we have to “earn” those rights?
C) Equal Access:
“Women could not be citizens because they were not “independent”… their citizenship…through education of their children and their moral influence over their husbands… to maintain the moral conscience.” (Reuben 2005)
“Racism permeated the school curriculum, and until the 1960s, educators generally ignored African Americans’ efforts.” (Reuben 2005)
Do we actually have equality at this point? What would/does equality actually look like? Is having all classes together as one lead to equality in the classroom or is it just covering up racism (ethnic, gender, etc.) in schools today?
In summary, “education remains a key of “enacting” ideals of citizenship – communicating and debating changing values, translating ideas into expectations for behavior, and expressing beliefs in institutional forms” (Reuben 2005). How are we using education to “enact” ideals into our children? How are the expectations of our nation influencing our education?
These issues will always be adapting and evolving to meet the needs of our current society. As future educators I agree that education is the place where children learn many lessons about how to be a citizen and learn the tools to be successful. Also I believe that the family is important to influence many of the social and emotional needs of the child. With this burden upon us as teachers, I need to be self reflective and socially reflective so that my teachings and understandings can reflect the two.
A) Control and Choice:
“Advocates of compulsory schooling often argued that families were failing to carry out their traditional functions or moral and vocational training.” (Tyack 1976)
In other words it is time for the government to take control from the families and schools are now responsible for moral and vocational training. This is a discussion that happened during the common school movement and still is discussed. Barrack Obama is for the “Zero to Five Plan” that will “provide critical support to young children and their parents… move toward universal pre-school” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education). By instating this type of plan we are saying that the parents do not have the tools to prepare children for schooling. Where as McCain debates that “public education should be defined as one in which our public support for a child’s education follows that child into the school the parent chooses” (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/19ce50b5-daa8-4795-b92d-92bd0d985bca.htm).
Where does that control lie? Who is molding the children of our nation?
B) Role of Education:
“Americans had enormous faith in the power of schooling to transform all kinds of people – even “enemies” – into citizens.” (Tyack 1976)
Immigration and language differences… Do we keep their old culture or assimilate it into ours? Do we insist on the students becoming fluent in English or can we have a multilingual nation?
“… education not only produced good character and multiplied knowledge but that it is also the most prolific of material riches… Education enabled people to become rational decision makers by comprehending… school made workers punctual, industrious, frugal, and too rational to cause trouble for their employers.” (Tyack 1976)
“…both saw teachers and other intellectual workers mostly as servants of vested interest but believed that educators could become an important means of spreading the light for socialism.” (Tyack 1976)
What is the goal of our education system? Are we training our citizens to become a person who fills a role or one who is a free thinker?
You do not hear the argument very often of how our tax dollars are directly affecting our education system by putting them into schools. If we were to discuss the direct connection between the tax dollar and outcomes of education there might be an increase in support towards the rising educational costs? If people were able to see the direct connection they might be driven to develop the citizens that will produce some revenue in the future. This argument might also go back to tracking towards certain vocations because there would not be “wasted” investments in educating specific students. And that leads us back to what type of students are we producing through our schools?
“Children learn that liberty was their most cherished possession and their birthright as Americans.” (Tyack 1976)
Do we just deserve the rights we are born with or do we have to “earn” those rights?
C) Equal Access:
“Women could not be citizens because they were not “independent”… their citizenship…through education of their children and their moral influence over their husbands… to maintain the moral conscience.” (Reuben 2005)
“Racism permeated the school curriculum, and until the 1960s, educators generally ignored African Americans’ efforts.” (Reuben 2005)Do we actually have equality at this point? What would/does equality actually look like? Is having all classes together as one lead to equality in the classroom or is it just covering up racism (ethnic, gender, etc.) in schools today?
In summary, “education remains a key of “enacting” ideals of citizenship – communicating and debating changing values, translating ideas into expectations for behavior, and expressing beliefs in institutional forms” (Reuben 2005). How are we using education to “enact” ideals into our children? How are the expectations of our nation influencing our education?
These issues will always be adapting and evolving to meet the needs of our current society. As future educators I agree that education is the place where children learn many lessons about how to be a citizen and learn the tools to be successful. Also I believe that the family is important to influence many of the social and emotional needs of the child. With this burden upon us as teachers, I need to be self reflective and socially reflective so that my teachings and understandings can reflect the two.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Teach through active citizenship
“The eyes of the virtuous all over the earth are turned with anxiety on us, as the only depositories of the sacred fire of liberty, and …our falling into anarchy would decide forever the destinies of mankind, and seal the political heresy that man is incapable of self-government.” - Tyack quotes Jefferson
In other words, the world was and still is watching us. The 2008 presidential election is a pivotal point in our nation’s history. Not just because the times are changing but because millions of people are turning into active citizens by taking interest in the election. Elshtain states that, “a compilation of opinions does not make a civic culture; such a culture emerges only from a deliberative process.”
In the movie, The American President, the president makes a speech in which he declares,
“America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”
Debates are an essential part of American politics and when we come to a respected acknowledgement of different positions, it is then time for compromise. Elshtain claims that democracy “embeds at its heart the ideal of compromise.” Obama seems to agree. In his speech last Thursday he said, “but this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.”
In Bowling Alone, Putnum observes a decline in American civility. The American people turned into passive citizens. “Security guards and metal detectors (in our schools) are poor surrogates for civility,” states Barber. Kids are smart. They watch and learn from the way society acts. Barber goes on to state, “are our kids stupid or smart for ignoring what we preach and copying what we practice? The young, with their keen noses for hypocrisy, are in fact adept readers—but not of books. They are society-smart rather than book-smart.” Barber goes on to say, “most agree that although money can’t by itself solve problems, without money few problems can be solved. Money also can’t win wars or put men in space, but it is the crucial facilitator. It is also how America has traditionally announced, we are serious about this!” Americans must demand that we get up and get serious. Jefferson said we must, “reclaim them by enlightening them.” As of right now, America does not care enough to seriously improve education nor even to vote for a president. Who we vote into the White House will have to power to make change. Maybe the next president can put our children on the track to becoming both society and book-smart.
This election is important because people are starting to wake-up from an apathetic haze. We can teach our youth by being role-models, being active citizens and by voting in this election. Elshtain states, “for when equality and justice seem far-off ideas, freedom preserves the human discourse necessary to work toward the realization of both.”
Erica Harlow September 1, 2008
Related links:
Glassbooth.org
RocktheVote.org
Transcript of Obama’s nomination speech in the New York Times
GenerationEngage.org
American President clip (1.15-1.40minutes)
Friday, August 29, 2008
Welcome!
Welcome to our blog space. My hope is that this becomes a virtual dialogue in which we can continue our conversations from class and perhaps propel each other’s thinking about this complex field.
First things first: let’s make sure you can all access this space. Take a moment to introduce yourself in the comments section. Your comment will both let us get to know each other a bit better and confirm that you are able to access and post to our blog.
Then, in your commentary for this week, please suggest one website that you think should be linked to our blog. Propose sites which you think are informative and relevant to our course. They may be resource sites or opinion sites- just be sure to identify which one it is when you’re recommending it. I’ll add your suggestions to our blogroll.
Welcome!
Dr. McTamaney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
