In the effort to reform (for the sake of reform in my opinion), the current government administration is pushing for Common Core Standards for the entire country. Sounds like a good idea? That is what many of the top educational research organizations are saying, including the Fordham Institute.
But don't jump to conclusions based on the Fordham Institute rating scale. According to William J. Mathis, the research doesn't add up to being more economically competitive in the international community, which is one of the core arguments for those who support the standards.
With the conflicting research, why are we jumping ahead with creating national standards in education? Because we aren't doing as well as some think we should be, which therefore means we must need to make our standards more rigorous. Yet, the difference in schools in low income neighborhoods to more affluent areas is striking according to many who have taught in both places. Does creating a common standard necessarily provide a better education for all those students? While they claim that these standards prepare students for college and work expectations, I wonder if they only focus on the academics and not the practical experience of working. It seems that today the focus on education is all about everyone must go to college and locally the vo-tech opportunities seem to be diminishing (according to inside sources). But is college right for everyone?
I often hear complaints often about how we no longer make anything in the U.S. and that we live off the backs of poorer countries. I feel that this is due to the "college for everyone" attitude that seems to be more than just an "if you want to go you can" attitude and has become an "everyone must go to college to make something of themselves" attitude. Is this more detrimental to our children's psyche if they aren't good at the academics but perhaps have a talent working with their hands or in an area of art such as music or photography? Which leads us back to Common Core Standards and how they will influence education.
One final thought on common standards is that we live in a very large and diverse country. Everything I have learned in my educational courses as well as in my personal experiences, leads to the benfits of individualized education rather than a "one size fits all" mentality. When we take away control of standards from the individual school which understands their student population and put it in the hands of a higher group whether that is the district, the state, or a national board, aren't we disempowering the teachers? If they have little control over what must be taught to meet these standards, what choice do they have but to teach to the test? Why are we so keen on removing local control of educational decisions from the people who know and understand our children the most, us?
While Colorado is still considering the standards, 26 states have already adopted them. Visit Corestandards.org to read more about the Common Core Standards. To read more opinions on the subject, check out this site.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Teachers of the Future
Is it possible? Could we really be looking at the future of education to be handled by robots? According to this article, there are already countries experimenting with classrooms taught by robots and here in the US, we are already testing them on preschoolers.
The story opens with the example of a young autistic boy who successfully mimics the robot's actions. They even mention that when the boy begins to retreat from the learning session, the robot doesn't give up and soon is able to get the boy active again. A good thing, I think most of us can agree. Furthermore, "Researchers say the pace of innovation is such that these machines should begin to learn as they teach, becoming the sort of infinitely patient, highly informed instructors that would be effective in subjects like foreign language or in repetitive therapies used to treat developmental problems like autism." I wonder why we aren't spending more money on creating highly effective teachers? Wouldn't that mean that robots would become unnecessary?
Now, the funny thing is that one of the executives who is helping to create these robots made a comment that not only made me laugh, but was also one of those "Here's Your Sign" type comments. “The problem with autonomous machines is that people are so unpredictable, especially children...” Do you think so? Apparently some kids ripped the arms off one of the robots. The solution? Make the robot cry, at least a noise that sounds like crying.
They are also teaching the robots to think for themselves. After all, they need to be able to interpret when a student is learning or when a specific teaching method is not working for them.
This all makes me wonder about the possibility of such movies as Terminator or the Matrix. Of course, that could be my sci-fi freak nature coming out because we just started watching the new version of Battle Star Galactica, another "humans create robots that take over the world" story line.
But is all this necessary? They don't give much data of information, just that it is working and positive. I personally want to see the data and I want to see comparisons of adequately trained professional teachers using the same methods, in the same environment, with the same number of students. It is great if the robot works for small groups, but it has also been proven that teachers are more successful when they have smaller groups as well. The question remains, how do they compare when given the same learning situation as a real flesh and blood teacher. (Perhaps that doesn't matter, rather the fact that the robot teacher may be expensive upfront to purchase, but you don't have to worry about them calling in sick, taking vacation, or even paying them.)
Furthermore, going back to the child with Autism, one of the things important to teach children on the autistic spectrum and others with non-verbal disabilities is to focus on social relationships. These types of things involve real-world interactions that I find difficult to believe can be taught by a non-emotional machine. Facial expression, body language, and tone of voice are all important pieces of social interaction. Do you really think a robot can replace a teacher in that capacity?
The story opens with the example of a young autistic boy who successfully mimics the robot's actions. They even mention that when the boy begins to retreat from the learning session, the robot doesn't give up and soon is able to get the boy active again. A good thing, I think most of us can agree. Furthermore, "Researchers say the pace of innovation is such that these machines should begin to learn as they teach, becoming the sort of infinitely patient, highly informed instructors that would be effective in subjects like foreign language or in repetitive therapies used to treat developmental problems like autism." I wonder why we aren't spending more money on creating highly effective teachers? Wouldn't that mean that robots would become unnecessary?
Now, the funny thing is that one of the executives who is helping to create these robots made a comment that not only made me laugh, but was also one of those "Here's Your Sign" type comments. “The problem with autonomous machines is that people are so unpredictable, especially children...” Do you think so? Apparently some kids ripped the arms off one of the robots. The solution? Make the robot cry, at least a noise that sounds like crying.
They are also teaching the robots to think for themselves. After all, they need to be able to interpret when a student is learning or when a specific teaching method is not working for them.
This all makes me wonder about the possibility of such movies as Terminator or the Matrix. Of course, that could be my sci-fi freak nature coming out because we just started watching the new version of Battle Star Galactica, another "humans create robots that take over the world" story line.
But is all this necessary? They don't give much data of information, just that it is working and positive. I personally want to see the data and I want to see comparisons of adequately trained professional teachers using the same methods, in the same environment, with the same number of students. It is great if the robot works for small groups, but it has also been proven that teachers are more successful when they have smaller groups as well. The question remains, how do they compare when given the same learning situation as a real flesh and blood teacher. (Perhaps that doesn't matter, rather the fact that the robot teacher may be expensive upfront to purchase, but you don't have to worry about them calling in sick, taking vacation, or even paying them.)
Furthermore, going back to the child with Autism, one of the things important to teach children on the autistic spectrum and others with non-verbal disabilities is to focus on social relationships. These types of things involve real-world interactions that I find difficult to believe can be taught by a non-emotional machine. Facial expression, body language, and tone of voice are all important pieces of social interaction. Do you really think a robot can replace a teacher in that capacity?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Evaluating Teachers
Between the Race to the Top (RttT) fund in full swing, stage 2 now, and reforms being made in many states, including Colorado (in hopes of winning RttT), the way in which we evaluate teachers is big news lately.
Diane Ravitch, a professor at New York University had this to say about the way we evaluate teachers. Basically, because so many different things influence the performance on testing, it is not an effective way to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness in the classroom. Furthermore, she says that teachers should be judged by "professional standards," but does little to explain exactly what this means.
Some of the others who responded to this question made suggestions such as the outcomes of the education process, but most admit there is not a fool-proof method for evaluating this.
So what is the answer? A while back either someone told me this or I read it somewhere. (It isn't my idea, but I am unsure who I need to contribute it to. However, if you know, please let me know so that I can reference your idea in my blog.) The idea was with regards to having departmental review committees from that school.
Diane Ravitch, a professor at New York University had this to say about the way we evaluate teachers. Basically, because so many different things influence the performance on testing, it is not an effective way to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness in the classroom. Furthermore, she says that teachers should be judged by "professional standards," but does little to explain exactly what this means.
Some of the others who responded to this question made suggestions such as the outcomes of the education process, but most admit there is not a fool-proof method for evaluating this.
So what is the answer? A while back either someone told me this or I read it somewhere. (It isn't my idea, but I am unsure who I need to contribute it to. However, if you know, please let me know so that I can reference your idea in my blog.) The idea was with regards to having departmental review committees from that school.
It stems from the poor practice of having an administrator evaluate teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom. This is not a valuable evaluation in my mind because those administrators are no long dealing with the day to day needs of the individual classrooms. Furthermore, for some administrators it may have been years or possibly they have never even taught in a classroom. However, having departmental reviews done by peers who are currently working in classrooms and with the curriculum appears to me to be a more sound method for evaluation. After all, in business, the CEO or President is not the one who evaluates the office personnel. Rather it is their immediate boss or peers who work alongside them in the trenches that provide the most accurate assessment of their performance.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Friendship 911
Last week this story came to my attention and at first I couldn't believe what I saw. I thought perhaps it was a passing thing, but now, a week later, it is being talked about by newspapers and bloggers around the country. So I couldn't let it slip by without saying my two cents on the subject.
"A Best Friend? You Must Be Kidding" is a title that sounds innocent enough, but what does that really mean? It means that schools and camps are now advocating that children focus on groups of friends rather than a single best friend. It means that the days of the paired up children who can always be found together is over. It means that these adults think they know better than the kids about who their friends should be and are interfering with the normal social dynamics of growing up. They say they have good reasoning for doing this; such as preventing bullying and cliques.
Now I agree that bullying is not a good thing. I have seen some of my own students become victims of bullying because of their delayed social development or physical disabilities. Bullying has always been an issue at schools where a student is singled out for some reason or another. I was bullied as a child myself. In fact, I remember a girl one time got mad at me when we were playing and told me that the only reason she was being nice to me was because the teacher had told the class to be nice because my brother had died. I look back at that now and see this intentional manipulation of friendships as its own type of bullying that will do more harm than good, in my opinion.
You can't possibly be friends with everyone in the world. Why? Not everyone has the same interests, values and experiences from which to build a friendship. That doesn't mean that we throw common courtesy out the window however. Shouldn't acceptance and inclusion be taught rather than going to the extreme of trying to interrupt the natural tendency for people who share commonalities from being together? I wonder how this will play into the continued erosion of the family and marriage in this country? I have to agree with the psychologists on this one, "If children’s friendships are choreographed and sanitized by adults, the argument goes, how is a child to prepare emotionally for both the affection and rejection likely to come later in life?"
With that in mind, who is your best friend? Why do you consider them to be your best friend? Mine is my husband and it is because we share everything. That doesn't mean we always get along perfectly. However, through the ups and downs I had with best friends growing up, both betrayal and bonding from the time I was a child that continue into my adult life, I have learned how to deal with the emotional fall out and truly share my triumphs with someone who also shares in my beliefs but can add perspective to my life. I don't believe that this would be possible if most of my childhood friendships were staged and yes, I am glad that the girl who told me she was only being nice because she was told to was honest with me. Perhaps I was a spoiled child who was selfish and needed to be ostracized by my peers in order to learn a lesson that has helped develop me into the compassionate, loving adult I am today.
"A Best Friend? You Must Be Kidding" is a title that sounds innocent enough, but what does that really mean? It means that schools and camps are now advocating that children focus on groups of friends rather than a single best friend. It means that the days of the paired up children who can always be found together is over. It means that these adults think they know better than the kids about who their friends should be and are interfering with the normal social dynamics of growing up. They say they have good reasoning for doing this; such as preventing bullying and cliques.
Now I agree that bullying is not a good thing. I have seen some of my own students become victims of bullying because of their delayed social development or physical disabilities. Bullying has always been an issue at schools where a student is singled out for some reason or another. I was bullied as a child myself. In fact, I remember a girl one time got mad at me when we were playing and told me that the only reason she was being nice to me was because the teacher had told the class to be nice because my brother had died. I look back at that now and see this intentional manipulation of friendships as its own type of bullying that will do more harm than good, in my opinion.
You can't possibly be friends with everyone in the world. Why? Not everyone has the same interests, values and experiences from which to build a friendship. That doesn't mean that we throw common courtesy out the window however. Shouldn't acceptance and inclusion be taught rather than going to the extreme of trying to interrupt the natural tendency for people who share commonalities from being together? I wonder how this will play into the continued erosion of the family and marriage in this country? I have to agree with the psychologists on this one, "If children’s friendships are choreographed and sanitized by adults, the argument goes, how is a child to prepare emotionally for both the affection and rejection likely to come later in life?"
With that in mind, who is your best friend? Why do you consider them to be your best friend? Mine is my husband and it is because we share everything. That doesn't mean we always get along perfectly. However, through the ups and downs I had with best friends growing up, both betrayal and bonding from the time I was a child that continue into my adult life, I have learned how to deal with the emotional fall out and truly share my triumphs with someone who also shares in my beliefs but can add perspective to my life. I don't believe that this would be possible if most of my childhood friendships were staged and yes, I am glad that the girl who told me she was only being nice because she was told to was honest with me. Perhaps I was a spoiled child who was selfish and needed to be ostracized by my peers in order to learn a lesson that has helped develop me into the compassionate, loving adult I am today.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
School Reform
School reform is a tired phrase that we hear over and over again. Reform the curriculum, change the name of "special education" to "student success," or even update the building, hire a new position, etc. all in the name of school reform. Where has all this school reform gotten us? Back to where we started.
Today a good friend and retired special education teacher brought this article to my attention, "End Them, Don't Mend Them." She was unsure if they went a little too far in the article, but then realized that we had been talking about this exact thing for the last 4 weeks.
P.J. O'Rourke makes a good case and his use of humor through use of wild exaggerations gets his point across while still evoking a chuckle at the expense of the reality of the situation. Humor aside, he does have a good point with regards to our current state of education and the whole reform movement.
Look at how much money the school spends per pupil; U.S. Average of $9,683 per pupil according to National Center for Education Statistics. If you are like me, you think "Wow, there is plenty of money going to education." Yet, our students are still not performing as well as we feel they should. That leads to the question of where is all the money going? I direct you once again to the article "End Them, Don't Mend Them," because he shows you that the money going to administration is draining away the money that should be going to our kids in the classroom. How do I know this to be true? Check out this website put together by teachers in the Boulder Vally School District, BVSDBudget.org. They found that the local school district is increasing administration pay while student enrollment increases and the number of teachers is staying flat. When it hits you locally, the truth hurts.
Now what do we do? How do we really reform the schools? Honestly, I don't know that we can reform the system we currently have and I am of like mind with Mr. O'Rourke and Sharron Angle of Nevada that perhaps it is time to eliminate the current system of a "one size fits all" attitude and get back to community based education instead.
Today a good friend and retired special education teacher brought this article to my attention, "End Them, Don't Mend Them." She was unsure if they went a little too far in the article, but then realized that we had been talking about this exact thing for the last 4 weeks.
P.J. O'Rourke makes a good case and his use of humor through use of wild exaggerations gets his point across while still evoking a chuckle at the expense of the reality of the situation. Humor aside, he does have a good point with regards to our current state of education and the whole reform movement.
Look at how much money the school spends per pupil; U.S. Average of $9,683 per pupil according to National Center for Education Statistics. If you are like me, you think "Wow, there is plenty of money going to education." Yet, our students are still not performing as well as we feel they should. That leads to the question of where is all the money going? I direct you once again to the article "End Them, Don't Mend Them," because he shows you that the money going to administration is draining away the money that should be going to our kids in the classroom. How do I know this to be true? Check out this website put together by teachers in the Boulder Vally School District, BVSDBudget.org. They found that the local school district is increasing administration pay while student enrollment increases and the number of teachers is staying flat. When it hits you locally, the truth hurts.
Now what do we do? How do we really reform the schools? Honestly, I don't know that we can reform the system we currently have and I am of like mind with Mr. O'Rourke and Sharron Angle of Nevada that perhaps it is time to eliminate the current system of a "one size fits all" attitude and get back to community based education instead.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Special Education Parties Eliminated
Boulder Valley School District is planning to eliminate special parties for special education students, district wide. Read this article to get all the details.
Kim Bane from the district cites 2 reasons in the article for eliminating the program. Her first reasoning is the time of the events, often during the school day which takes away instructional time. Her second reason deals with inclusion.
Let's start with the second reason, inclusion. While it is important to include all students in activities at the school, this is already common practice. The special education students are always encouraged to attend and participate in all school activities. They haven't changed a policy to suddenly allow these students at activities they weren't permitted to attend before. Meanwhile, the schools are already part of the national trend of inclusion at the school on all levels, so these students are interacting with their peers in the traditional classroom daily. In fact, this past year I witnessed an honor student who worked in the resource room with special education students and was talking to one girl about whether she would be attending the basketball game later that night. This special education student who is in a wheelchair was planning to go. Plenty of inclusion going on at this school and bonding between peer groups. So in my opinion, the inclusion argument is moot.
Going back to the first reason, missed instructional time, the article notes that these students are pulled out during the school day for 2 hours, 4 times a year for these activities. Not a huge loss in instruction time, especially if you know that in special education courses it is taught that recreation and leisure activities are something that need to be taught to special education students. Therefore these could be considered additional parts to the curriculum in providing opportunities for these students to meet new students from across the district. Furthermore, let's add up the number of hours that sports students miss from instructional time to drive to a game or meet. Do you think it would exceed 8 hours in a school year? What about that missed instruction time?
In my opinion, this isn't about instruction time or inclusion. So what is it all about? Money. Plain and simple. Special Education students often require special transportation because of their needs. The article does mention this, but it seems to get lost in the controversy and focus of the issue. Students with special needs have exactly that, special needs. They need to be taught special life skills to help them assimilate into society. Transportation is one of these life skills. So why can't the district use this as a teaching opportunity for these students? Why not teach them how to use the public transit system to get to these events? I still know of special education adults who "hate the bus" and won't make it to classes just for this reason. Why do they hate the bus? I don't know, but perhaps if the school taught them this skill to attend a special event where they would meet new students, they would be more likely to participate in events on their own as adults by using the public transportation system.
Kim Bane from the district cites 2 reasons in the article for eliminating the program. Her first reasoning is the time of the events, often during the school day which takes away instructional time. Her second reason deals with inclusion.
Let's start with the second reason, inclusion. While it is important to include all students in activities at the school, this is already common practice. The special education students are always encouraged to attend and participate in all school activities. They haven't changed a policy to suddenly allow these students at activities they weren't permitted to attend before. Meanwhile, the schools are already part of the national trend of inclusion at the school on all levels, so these students are interacting with their peers in the traditional classroom daily. In fact, this past year I witnessed an honor student who worked in the resource room with special education students and was talking to one girl about whether she would be attending the basketball game later that night. This special education student who is in a wheelchair was planning to go. Plenty of inclusion going on at this school and bonding between peer groups. So in my opinion, the inclusion argument is moot.
Going back to the first reason, missed instructional time, the article notes that these students are pulled out during the school day for 2 hours, 4 times a year for these activities. Not a huge loss in instruction time, especially if you know that in special education courses it is taught that recreation and leisure activities are something that need to be taught to special education students. Therefore these could be considered additional parts to the curriculum in providing opportunities for these students to meet new students from across the district. Furthermore, let's add up the number of hours that sports students miss from instructional time to drive to a game or meet. Do you think it would exceed 8 hours in a school year? What about that missed instruction time?
In my opinion, this isn't about instruction time or inclusion. So what is it all about? Money. Plain and simple. Special Education students often require special transportation because of their needs. The article does mention this, but it seems to get lost in the controversy and focus of the issue. Students with special needs have exactly that, special needs. They need to be taught special life skills to help them assimilate into society. Transportation is one of these life skills. So why can't the district use this as a teaching opportunity for these students? Why not teach them how to use the public transit system to get to these events? I still know of special education adults who "hate the bus" and won't make it to classes just for this reason. Why do they hate the bus? I don't know, but perhaps if the school taught them this skill to attend a special event where they would meet new students, they would be more likely to participate in events on their own as adults by using the public transportation system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)