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.
24 comments:
I found this today and it seemed interesting, in light of your post:
"In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
- Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to the American Defense Society in 1919, retrieved from www.nashvilleenglishfirst.com September 9, 2008
Thanks for the insightful post.
I will be commenting concerning the idea of "Control and Choice." I find it fascinating how America has tended toward centralization and efficiency over time. America began with a very clear mistrust for centralization and only accepted it in the form of the current Constitution after a vociferous defense by the likes of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay (c.f. Federalist Papers). The common school movement marked an important shift that has yet to be reversed, that of the society taking more and more responsibility for the rearing of children. As the stable filial associations that marked “our” grandparents’ generation crumbles into dissolution, the society, and in turn the school, will be required to step in and fill the gap—shoes that the schools are already struggling to fill. Where will this transfer of the responsibility and authority from the family to the state stop? Imagine with me a “Republic” in which all children are raised in common by “Guardians” rather than their own parents, whom they in fact do not even know (impersonal, but think of the economic and political efficiency!). Though likely repulsive to many of us, to one great mind of the western tradition (hint: Plato) such a government was progressive and utopian.
“Where does the control lie?” Currently in the hands of the parents, though, if Plato is to be taken as a prophetic voice, the future may witness a very different reality.
“Who is molding the children of our nation?” Easy, the media and popular culture. Any dissenters?
Schools are an important way to keep society functioning smoothly and cohesion stable. Schools have the opportunity to bring together children from all different backgrounds with a range of unique experiences. When in schools, the variety of children have a common experience and have the opportunity to encounter each other. This is important when building and maintaining a nation.
I believe this was the situation when Anderson discusses the education of blacks in the south. Knowing that blacks will play a different role in society, right or wrong, tailored an education so to produce a good citizen, workforce, and person who could play a specific role in that culture without disrupting the social cohesion, although not very positive for that group.
Today our government still has these issues. Social cohesion is a constant battle as minority and low income children receive a lower quality education stratifying the groups when it comes to equal opportunities. We have a growing population of immigrants and schools provide a chance for interaction and understanding if the right opportunity is presented, but most schools are becoming more segregated. Vocational education is still in debate as this provides an opportunity for people to have meaningful skills to be productive, or it is a way to encourage certain groups of children to maintain the social structure.
We are also part of a larger society, the global society, where competition is getting stiff. Our schools will need to shape children with the skills required to be functional in this society. With these demands on the school system, help is needed. Either parents can pitch in during non school hours or the schools themselves will need to include more time to accomplish the tasks.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), kids in the United States watch about 4 hours of TV a day. In a year, the average child spends 900 hours in school and nearly 1,023 hours in front of a TV. If a child spends 45 minutes a day on math and then can still squeeze in 4 hours of TV maybe the government should step in.
Parents and families look very different than they did two generation ago, with more single parents or both parents working. I wonder if it is reasonable to expect parents to produce such a student.
As a master's student seeking my endorsement in ELL, the discussion here hits close to my interests. In response to the quote posted my Dr. McTamaney, (specifically, "Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all.") I could not disagree more. (While I know it was said a long time ago, we must realize that in reality, some similar opinions do exist today). The unfamiliar is often feared as with languages that are different than English. However, these opinions are only doing a disservice to the multicultural...a group of students that are so prevalent in the classrooms. Because people speak a different language does not mean that their loyalty is only to the country where that language is spoken. America is supposed to be a "melting-pot" where diversity is not only accepted but valued. I wonder when and why a transition from this idea occurred?!
It has been my experience that people who are multicultural, speaking a language other than English, are often the individuals who are actually the most motivated and ready to learn. I do agree with Zach that one of the most important ways to increase the motivation of the student is to involve the parent. Schools and teachers are taking many different actions to increase parental interest as such involvement often coincides with increased success for the student. This, however, will only be encouraged if teachers are accepting of immigrants and minority students even if the larger society may not treat these people as fairly.
As Zach stated, diverse learners have great potential to benefit America by "producing a good citizen, workforce, and person who could play a specific role in that culture." Instead of focusing on the differences between these people and "Americans" why not focus on the similarities or the ways in which their knowledge and competencies could be used to our benefit?
As Zach commented, our schools reflect a larger society. I would have to add to his comment, "Our schools will need to shape children with the skills required to be functional in this society," that our societal perspective needs to change. If SES divisions, which often are placed upon multicultural individuals, are a result of society, how can the disadvantages be alleviated and eradicated? It becomes necessary for society to grant the multicultural trust and freedom (or the ability to use their language of origin).
I would like to add to Matt's comment towards the question in the first post of "who molds our kids?" According to the U.S General Accounting Office report published in September 2000 about advertising in public schools, about 40% of advertisers who cannot reach the child market are trying to reach it by advertising at public schools. And, many of the public schools are accepting these advertisements ( direct or indirect) for a profit. For example, 45% of school districts advertise on their school buses! The advertisers know how much of an effect they have on children.
On another topi',
I agree with Emily that many foreign students are the students that are highly motivated. I believe this comes from the fact thta they have come to appreciate the US for all its freedoms and choices, and they know not to take it for granted. For example, my husband is not an American citizen, but he is more interested in the presidential election than me. This interest stems from the fact that he cannot vote in it, but he understands how important it is to have a say in how our government is run. That liberty of vote is a liberty that I even take for granted.
On the topic of the goal of education, there has always been a conflict between schooling for the equality of all students ( teaching them to be good citizens) and differentiated schooling, tailored to fit the needs of the economy. We have to wonder which way would best benefit our present society, and unfortunately, I have a hard time choosing between the two goals.
These are the conversations that keep me up at night... so, I'm lying in bed this morning thinking about our class discussion on Tuesday and about the implicits in models like the native schools or isolated urban school settings. If we believe (and I'm not saying asserting that we do, just playing devil's advocate here) that students can be well served in demographically segregated schools, what does that say about the nature of schools? It's sort of the stepping stones of the industrial schools, isn't it? That we can't necessarily get this group of (freedmen/immigrants/urban poor) students to the level we expect from traditional schools, but we'll offer a next-step-up school that may get them closer.
I think there are analogies to be made, as Zach is suggesting, between the way "professional" educators responded to post-Civil War education in the South and the solutions that are bantered about for LEP students or high poverty students today. I'm having a hard time articulating it though... anyone want to give it a shot?
The Roosevelt quotation is interesting, because it sounds like something that could be written today. Perhaps that is why it was originally posted on the Nashville English First site - Eric Crafton and followers are attempting to justify their actions with early-20th century presidential wisdom. Ironically, the immigrants Roosevelt speaks of may be the ancestors of the main proponents of the English First Initiative.
I recently watched a movie called "Sweet Land," which dealt with similar issues. It was set in 1919 or 1920 and told the story of a German woman coming to America. She spoke no English, and, because it took place right after World War I, the community refused to allow her to speak German. "English only!" they commanded. Eventually, she did learn English, but, of course, it was much more difficult for her without the support of the community.
Immigrants today face similar discrimination. In Foundation for Bilingual Ed, which I think several of you are in, we discussed how much easier it is for an ELL, if they are taught in their native language as well as English. Though this is more difficult for a school system to handle, the purpose of the American school is to educate American students, and the reality is that many American students are not native English speakers.
For the most part, I agree with Emily's opinions about the Roosevelt quotation (though I would question her use of the term "melting pot" as I think that implies a stripping away of individual identity). America is a nation of immigrants. Just because the founding fathers spoke English doesn't mean it has to be our only language. I like Emily's assertion that teachers must be "accepting of immigrants and minority students even if the larger society may not treat these people as fairly." Because teachers are dealing with these issues daily, they have special power to stop discrimination against immigrants and/or minority groups. But, like Emily, I feel that teachers can only do so much. The change can start in schools - after all, what ends discrimination better than education? - but it also needs to happen in society at large. In the original post, Ashleigh asked, "Do we actually have equality at this point?" I would say no, not because our schools continue to be legally segregated, but because our society segregates itself. Poor and/or minority students do not have equal access to quality education. If, as Matthew suggests, society continues "taking more and more responsibility for the rearing of children," we need to make sure that we are caring for ALL of America's children, including the poor, the racially diverse, and those who do not speak "our" language.
“I think there are analogies to be made, as Zach is suggesting, between the way "professional" educators responded to post-Civil War education in the South and the solutions that are bantered about for LEP students or high poverty students today.
I agree, and as Matthew explains, “The common school movement marked an important shift that has yet to be reversed.”
I have drawn some connections between the design of the Hampton program and the structure of today’s education under NCLB. Specifically, how they both perpetuate the existing stratification of social classes under the mask of creating productive citizens.
Anderson describes the Hampton-Tuskegee model, “as a program to reinforce the existing structure of the South’s political economy and make it run more efficiently,” (p.82). Although the time period, goals, and ideals are different, the end results are the same as NCLB. Take for example the article, Schools on list can’t win for losing, where we read about the struggles many schools are facing under NCLB. “Under the NCLB law, states are required to set aside a certain amount of money to help schools and districts that repeatedly fail to meet state benchmarks. But once the interventions start working, and the school meets its goals for two consecutive years, the money goes to other schools and districts that need it.” This is a clear example of how our educational system under NCLB fails to close the achievement gap of our impoverished students.
I think Lindsey makes an excellent point in mentioning, “Our society segregates itself. Poor and/or minority students do not have equal access to quality education.” I think we segregate ourselves behind the façade of standardized tests and policies that set out “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to a high-quality education,” (Title I, Part A) when in actuality we only maintain society's inequalities.
This evening I went to Debroah Ball’s lecture, The Work for Teaching and the Challenge for Teacher Education. Ball believes, “the United States needs a system of initial and continuous teacher education that can reliably help prepare ordinary people for effective professional practice in teaching.” In essence, we can’t expect random people to come off the street and effectively teach children because teaching in innately “unnatural, intricate and deliberate.”
In the last blog response, Kate states that “we segregate ourselves behind the façade of standardized tests and policies that set out “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to a high-quality education,” (Title I, Part A) when in actuality we only maintain society's inequalities.” This theory of maintaining society’s inequalities is also supported by Ball’s opinion that teaching is an acquired skill. The inequality of access to capable teachers only perpetuates the inequality of education. NCLB tries to ensure equality through measurement; yet, it provides no tools to teachers to reach that goal.
I am personally tired of all the rhetoric. I am now looking for ideas on how to reach the goals of being an effective teacher and reaching educational equality. Ball suggests we need to teach our teachers how to be teachers.
Any thoughts?
Erica quoted that Deborah Ball thinks we need to "teach our teachers how to be teachers." A lot of time and energy goes into educating individuals to become better, more effective teachers. But I wonder if anyone should teach our parents how to be parents?
Anybody could become a parent. It is both an exciting and a frightening thought. But my point is that no one is "experienced" or "trained" to be a parent. Benjamin Barber remarked, "In real life, as every parent knows, children are born fragile, born needy, born ignorant, born uninformed, born weak, born foolish, born dependent -- born in chains" (1993). Some children are fortunate because their parents know how to take care of them and know what is appropriate to help them development. However, by no fault of the child, some parents are not as prepared and are just trying to do what they think is best for their child.
I think Zach made a good point when he mentioned the AAP's study that shows children are watching 1,023 hours of television a year. Unfortunately, a lot of parents allow their children to watch that much television because they don't know that it is harmful. Also, many parents are working full-time jobs, or are single parents and can't be around to control how much TV their child watches. Zach mentioned this when he discussed the changes in what a typical family looks like.
Furthermore, in Ashleigh's original post she mentioned Obama's "Zero to Five Plan" and the idea that the government should intervene and help educate and take care of "America's children." However, I too, like Matthew stated, see the eerie similarities that this would have to Plato's "Republic."
I don't have any answers...but I wonder what would happen if in addition to tackling the education system we worked toward educating and helping parents? Barber said, "Finally, if we were serious, parents, teachers and students would be the real players while administrators, politicians, and experts would be secondary..." (1993). What if we, as a nation, worked toward creating more universal programs for new parents? This way all parents, from all nationalities, could have access to materials and experts that could answer any questions they have about their child. What would happen if both the teacher and the parent were on the same page? What if the education in the classroom could be carried home into the child’s family? Maybe then we could help parents so if they were given a choice to decide which "school" their child goes to...they would feel better prepared to make that decision?
Warning: this topic got me fired up and the post that follows is very opinionated. I hope it also makes some sense.
On the issue of control: you think getting parents to relinquish control of their community schools was/is tough? Can you even imagine the outrage and uproar that would arise should someone even suggest mandatory “parent training”? I can’t imagine ANY disguise the government could put on that idea that would convince people of its potential merit. No amount of lipstick could gussy up that pig enough even to fool the drunkest man alive. “Self-help” books about parenting are one thing, because of that operative word: self. But our society can’t even agree that teenagers should undergo mandatory driver training, even though the very-often-terrifying results of letting parents choose how and when their children learn to drive are much more tangible than the sometimes-scary results of letting ill-equipped parents raise their children without guidance. I think that getting parents more involved is a wonderful ideal that we should strive for, but it’s difficult to imagine how we would begin that massive social overhaul while still being both creative and subtle, two qualities that we would need in heaps in order to bring most parents into the fold.
On the issue of citizen training and the goals of education:
As many people have mentioned, it is an interesting and controversial statement that “Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all. . . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language”
Let’s say, JUST for the sake of argument, that this is the “true” definition of what it means to be an American, and that our schools should strive toward this goal of one American identity, with one language: English. We already know that many people feel this way, and while I would disagree, for the moment I will give them their premise. What I wish to challenge is the proposed method. Let’s look at ideas like English First, or the idea that we should drop ELLs into English-language classrooms and expect them simply to “catch up,” or simply provide one year, or one hour a day of English lessons to those students. These ideas are anti-child, anti-development, anti-scientific, and, I believe, anti-American. We are still in the early stages of understanding linguistic development, but we know from experience that children who are forced to learn solely or almost solely in a foreign language (meaning, for this vastly growing population of ELLs, English) suffer in their cognitive and academic development. Simple immersion is clearly ineffective, and we are creating an entire population that, in my opinion, has every right to resent America for failing to provide the opportunities it promises to every child. Even if one believes that a true American identity means complete assimilation to language and culture, how can that person see it as anything but unfair and even cruel to place this burden of assimilation on still-developing children who aren’t being given the opportunity to truly learn a new language and culture, but instead spend all of their time trying to use their extremely limited resources to simply “catch up”? The goal of a uniform citizenry does not mean the same thing as the goal of a completely uniform system of teaching those citizens and future citizens. If we threw our energy behind studies of different methods of teaching ELLs, without fear of being called un-American for wishing to do right by these children’s developing minds, perhaps we could in fact groom a generation of proud American citizens, proficient speakers of English, and informed, even optimistic voters.
Maybe then we could in fact offer government materials in only one language, because we would have adequately prepared our citizens to read and communicate in that one language. Maybe then we could say that our schools are truly devoted to creating our national identity, rather than constituting it. Maybe then we could truly lay claim to nurturing each child and ensuring that they do not, in fact, get left behind.
First off, wow there are a lot of really intense topics coming out through here, and it's pretty interesting for sure.
While we talk about if it's important to better train teachers or to better train parents, or if NCLB does what it wants to do, I found myself asking a lot of questions after reading the ____ chapters.
I look at a culture who had no education and no freedom, and the drive that they had to learn in any way possible was quite profound. With today's technology and information being so readily accessible, why do we feel a need to provide more and more resources to teachers, parents, children, and everyone else?
This reminds to look back at "Democracy on Trial." Why is the government picking up the slack when people have the ability to look up information at their finger -tips?
I would argue that teachers and parents need more motivation. If they want to be better parents, then let them search out the information that is out there for them. If teachers want to be better and more effective teachers, let them search out the different solutions that are out there for them.
I'm not saying that programs should not exist at all, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were already programs in place for both parents and teachers to improve themselves. Most school districts will help pay for teachers go back for further education (my brother did this for his Masters degree) and local community organizations must have programs in place to help parents. These programs need to exist, but mandatory? This I'm not so sure.
This thoughts just kind of came to me while reading everyone's responses so I'm sure there are flaws in my logic. However I'm just curious about what everyone else thinks about these things.
Wow from now on I need to make my post on Wednesday. This whole discussion is getting increasingly thought provoking the further down I read.
I want to comment on the idea of continuous teacher training that Erica brought up in her response. All around campus this past week there has been a blitz of advertising by the organization “Teach for America” to publicize their information session this week, as well as to recruit students to the cause. I entered a debate with one of my friends who asked me if I would go to the information session. After explaining how I am in a teacher education program and do not need the organization, we ended up discussing what was more important, fully competent teachers who have a combination of both the art of teaching and considerable content knowledge who are growing scarce throughout this country, or individuals with considerable content knowledge who without significant teacher training are being put into classrooms that most teachers with both the skill and knowledge do not want to go near. Putting my feelings for the organization aside (I will mention that I am not the biggest fan of “Teach for America” so that my rhetoric can be looked at through a scope) I think that it is worth considering the ability of private organizations to enter the teaching field without requiring their teachers to go through all of the requirements of licensure. While it is obvious that are government is slow to act when it comes to helping these schools in dire needs, it may become necessary purely to recruit more people willing to teach in those areas, despite their experience, so that there is at the very least, a warm body in the classroom to give those students a shot at obtaining content knowledge.
In an ideal world every classroom would be equipped with a professional teacher who has both the skill and the knowledge to man the difficult post of educator. Looking ahead to next weeks reading of Dewey, he explains that a synthesis of skill and knowledge are imperative in the progressive school system.
Unfortunately we do not exist in an ideal world, and while I may desire that all teachers be given a thorough education in the art of teaching, I can see that as our school system continues to expand, and the gap between students increases, there may be no other choice than to embrace these semi-prepared teachers throughout the field.
Before I begin, I would like to give kudos to Ashleigh for bringing up both Obama and McCain in her post. I admire that she put aside her personal preference in order to give us a greater understanding of the political debates regarding education.
While reading all of the comments, I too found myself thinking about the Teach for America program. I am not an expert on this program, but I do know the concept behind it is to find people to teach in inner-city schools, in exchange for partial college-loan repayment. I know people who have signed up for this program, and I always wish I could say it was out of the goodness of their heart, but their motivation lies in the loan reimbursement. I would also like to say that these people like children, are patient, etc., but this isn’t necessarily the case.
I fear that programs such as Teach for America attract selfishly motivated people. I am not saying that this is always the case; I even considered joining Teach for America if I didn’t get in to grad school. There are certainly people who are born teachers, and those who have a natural gift with children, who do willingly join these programs in order to serve the greater good. But there are also people who don’t have any talent at teaching yet still manage to earn a teachers license, and have the opportunity to teach at a private school where funding is not an issue. Teach for America is neither the solution nor the problem.
I think one of the main problems again comes back to responsibility. Who is the responsible party? In order to answer that question, we need to focus on the key player: the children. It takes parents, teachers, families, neighbors, and friends to raise children. In this quest we have to fix the school system, we should never forget the children, because isn’t the motivation to provide a child with opportunity? What is best for a child does vary by individual. Some children learn visually, some are sponges that can repeat everything (s)he hears, etc. All children, however, learn from their surroundings. If we limit the responsible parties just to parents or teachers, we are forgetting that both parents AND teachers will greatly impact the children, and that is leaving out all the other outside parties from whom children learn. We cannot force a parent to take a parenting class, but we can provide a parent with the proper knowledge of their community, what their rights are within a school system, and so forth. It is hard to inform a parent of his/her rights, however, when our nation still cannot decide on the “purpose” of education. While the grown-ups are bickering over what a school’s agenda should be (producing the perfect citizen, molding American’s who speak one language, or maintaining a pecking order), we are forgetting that a child goes to school to learn. Shouldn’t the point of education be to provide someone with the knowledge necessary not only to survive but how to become what they want to become? How can we tell a child that he can be an astronaut if that is his life dream when the education system is in place simply to mold a citizen? What happened to knowledge, and opportunity, and the freedom to choose your own life path using the knowledge you are offered? I don’t think our school system can provide children with these opportunities as long as we are still trying to figure out why we have schools in the first place.
"We are forgetting that a child goes to school to learn."
I don't think we are forgetting this, but this is the discussion, what should the child learn.
"I would argue that teachers and parents need more motivation. If they want to be better parents, then let them search out the information that is out there for them."
This is so hard because some of the parents that need the most help do not know where find or how to apply the information. It might be easy to say let them do it but some are in this situation precisely for the reason they are not able to help their children succeed in schools.
"This is so hard because some of the parents that need the most help do not know where find or how to apply the information." How do we make the information available to parents?
It seems to me that the most informed parents (and I could be wrong, this is all perception since I am neither a parent nor have I ever worked in a school) are those who are in the PTA. Shouldn't they be able to use their "parent" card and pass the information to other parents, simply because they can connect with other parents the way non-parents can't? Or perhaps parents should be reached in the ever-present "Parent Newsletter" that is often sent home on a regular basis, I don't know. Other ideas on how to help parents know about their options?
I want to comment on the question regarding parent education. In my former school which I taught( and granted it was a private school), we had many types of speakers that dealt with different forms of parent education. Of course, it was not mandatory, but a choice of the parents if they wanted to attend. As a result, the participation was quite high. We had speakers on how not to be a "Helicopter Parent"( how to relinquish control, how to not hover over your children, how to give them independence). We also had info sessions on Kingergarten readiness and the issue of bullying. I think most parents are open to having a choice of learning more about how to educate their child. If it eventually neccessitated government involvement, I would favor a local policy than national policy. Local boards would understand the local issues common to the area such as high percentages of dual working parents (which nanny or day care presence might be a factor), single parent families or the effects of poverty that could factor into a need for parent education.
My goodness I wish had the time to read and respond earlier. I am going to start by responding to Dr. McTamaney's thought...
If we believe (and I'm not saying asserting that we do, just playing devil's advocate here) that students can be well served in demographically segregated schools, what does that say about the nature of schools?....
I have had the opportunity to teach in two different schools and coincidentally they were both, for the most part, demographically segregated. The first is a poor urban school in East Nashville with a 99 percent poverty rate, and the second is a wealthy private school in Brentwood where the tuition is 30,000 a year. Yes, you read that.
It is my opinion that a student can be well served in a segregated school, but that student is MUCH better served in a school that is not segregated. If one of the goals as an educator is to help prepare students to function in society (and I know that is arguable), then this goal can not be well executed if the school is segregated. The reason is simple: The real world is not segregated. Sure we can pick friends that look like us or make the same amount of money as us, but the time will come when we're forced to interact with people who are different than us.
A student in a segregated school misses out on exposure to so many aspects and viewpoints of life. Yes it's possible to get a great education about math or science in a school like that, but when it comes to learning about life and tolerance, the student will miss out.
When it comes to the topic of better training parents, I find myself laughing out loud. How many parents would actually admit that they need training?
Chuck I was just reading a blog about Teach For America earlier today. You'd probably get a kick out of it...http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_i_joined.html
Wow... this is exactly what I'd hoped would happen on the blog. I'm very pleased to see so many of you logging back in to see how the conversation is unfolding.
What is the purpose of education? That's the same question we started with, right? Do you think we have enough consensus about what the answer to that is to be able to have any real specificity about how to address it? Don't we need to agree on what should be taught before we can decide how to teach the teachers to do it? Part of the challenge is that the purpose of education is both informed by and informative to the development of society. What we need out of this enterprise changes as our culture does... and the time it takes to align schools with those changes effectively and to bring those efforts to scale often means our classrooms are a generation behind our societal needs.
What do you think about this solution?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/09/15/feyerick.paying.for.grades.cnn
I would like to think that the purpose of education today is more focused on the future of the individual than it is on the future of society. I remember reading Benjamin Rush's quote about how the pupil "does not belong to himself, but that he is public property" and in my mind that thinking strips the individualism away from all of us.
After watching the CNN video, I have to say that while I think it is ridiculous that a parent would have to be paid in order to attend a parenting workshop, evidently that method is working because parents are showing up. I just wonder what methods the school district is using to assess the effectiveness of the "paying parents" program.
I would be the last one to post, but nonetheless, I like what conversation is going on here.
America is a melting pot and I think that as we call it that, we forget what it means. Granted, education has changed drastically since the beginning of the United States, but the language barriers then were much worse than they are today. Now we have standardized tests and rote teaching is becoming less of a "fad", so we cannot deal with language barriers like we once did, but I definitely think that we have some things to learn from our history.
I also disagree with the thought that those who wish to combine their cultures are not true Americans. We all of mixed cultures, but some of ours are just more far removed than the current immigrants. Once again, something to keep ourselves in check with.
As far as the goals of education are concerned, I think that the list that we came up with in class was a good basis (We had said that the goal of education was to mold minds to be functional within our country and now globally). I think that we should try and raise the standards of our education system, but while doing that, try to even it out more to where the "good" schools and "bad" schools aren't as far a part, and make sure that those students who want more opportunities are pointed in directions that allow them to reach those goals. Basically, teaching our students how to teach themselves. Have education start as being teaching and then move to facilitation, which brings me to the comment of teaching teachers to teach.
There's such a teaching shortage that a lot of people are throwing themselves into the classroom to get a job and they aren't cutting it, but then again, some teachers that have had lots of training, don't have the personality to keep their students engaged. I've had plenty of smart teachers that I thought were boring and plenty of ignorant teachers that just did it. I'm pretty torn on that issue, but I do think that it's important to make sure that the teaching workshops or professional development projects help teachers learn new "tricks" and learn how to be better teachers. After all, that is the purpose of those.
As far as teaching parents to be parents, I think that is a dangerous topic because you'll always get the parent that is like "that is the school's job, not mine." I know that when I teach, especially if I am teaching elementary school, when I send home their folder or parent letter, I'll include in the letter or e-mail things that the parents can ask their kids about school if they want to just ask their kids about their day because some parents just don't know what to ask. And they can either take that or leave it, but the option will be there.
Well, my brain is exhausted. Can't wait to see you all tomorrow!
I need just three more days in every week so these conversations don't have to switch gears!
Let's bring this over to the new Dewey post that's up.
Post a Comment