Saturday, October 26, 2013
TE 818 Final Thoughts- Controversial Subjects
Last week we began reading and discussing how schools approach controversial topics such as differing views of history, different cultures, race, LGBTQ, etc... It was clear that even among our class there were a lot of differing opinions. However, when I read articles that involve such extreme measures taken by students because of the way schools and the community react to what I call "touchy" subjects, there needs to be a change. I personally think that many of these reactions come from the hidden curriculum that is taught to children from the time they are young. This curriculum includes movies, stories, etc that show heterosexual relationships, has white people as heroes, etc. Throughout this exposure students are "taught" to what is considered the norm. Then when these topics are brought up, they are often ignored or barely touched upon because of the fear of making someone angry. I think the best measure to fix this problem is to allow exposure from the beginning to children so subjective norms are not established. Then as topics are brought up a teacher can take grasp of a teachable moment and prevent future problems through a series of short conversations throughout life. I think this would be MUCH more beneficial than hiding these issues until a student reaches middle school or high school and then trying to create lessons about the appropriateness of the topics and dealing with programs such as anti-bullying programs. It is always better to be proactive!
Sunday, October 20, 2013
TE 818- Theme 3B: What Schools Should Teach- Controversial Concepts
This week we read about two controversial issues: the dismantling of Mexican-American history in Arizona and the bullying/deaths resulted from LGBTQ issues. These are two very strong examples of issues that are not taught about directly within the schools.
I had never read/heard about the dismantling of the multiculturalism taught in Arizona until I read this article. I had heard of books being banned in the past for various reasons, but this seemed absurd to me. Throughout all of my classes and studies as an educator we are taught to find connections to our students lives' and teach to diversity to create warm, safe environments that give students a reason to learn. So why would they get rid of this? Jeff Biggers references books banned written by Mandela in South Africa and the fact that we knew this was to stop people from beginning a movement against the government, and continues that with the question, "What is the Tucson school district afraid of?" I found that question interesting, especially since it seemed to teach the students public discourse where the students used their rights to express their opinions. This topic appears to me as a topic that should be taught from the very beginnings of school. Learning about everyone's cultures. How we came to be a nation, especially with the history down there. Unless the teacher is sending the message that Mexican-Americans should begin a revolt to make this area part of Mexico again, what is the problem? We want our students to be critical thinkers and learn how to make decisions. That is the big push with 21st century skills. This hinders that ability by only allowing one view be taught with critical discussions. Rather, the students will read on their own in the libraries and create their own opinions with no guidance.
The next topic was very disheartening and a hot topic in the news today with the controversy over same-sex marriage. It is sad and disheartening that it has to be about this. The fact of the matter is there is a large percentage of people that fall into the LGBTQ category. There is no need to dance around it. The articles that included arguments against the teachings about this were majority religious people. Schools are supposed to separate church and state. There is no reason not to. However, in my school (since this is probably the only sort of diversity that we have) the principle gets extremely nervous and discourages teaching about anything with this topic because of parents. One time, we watched Channel One and it spoke to creating alliances and he had a fit. His argument was maybe it would be okay for older children. However, we had several students in that grade that were already speaking about being gay. I believe, as did several other teachers, that if we danced around the topic the unknown is weird to the overall student population and the students would get bullied.
Overall, my impression is that a lot of times touchy subjects are not taught because parents might get angry. However, they are/become touchy because they have always been the topics that educators and the general population skirt around. If intertwined into the curriculum in subtle ways, overtime, these topics become less touchy. If parents object to this, then I agree with the articles that parents should have the right to have their kid set aside for that. Or if it involves a reading lesson or something, an alternative approach. Similar to students that have certain religious beliefs that sit out during the pledge or during celebrations.
Extension
This is a book that could be used to teach multiple persepectives in a Social Studies classroom. I had to read it in my MLE program and it was by far the most interesting book I had read to that time about Social Studies because this was the FIRST time I was exposed to information that was not the classic british, american, male point of view. There are numerous books that he makes. There are numerous GLCE's that would work for this and other touchy subjects in Middle Grades such as
http://zinnedproject.org/materials/a-young-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Volume/dp/1583227598
I had never read/heard about the dismantling of the multiculturalism taught in Arizona until I read this article. I had heard of books being banned in the past for various reasons, but this seemed absurd to me. Throughout all of my classes and studies as an educator we are taught to find connections to our students lives' and teach to diversity to create warm, safe environments that give students a reason to learn. So why would they get rid of this? Jeff Biggers references books banned written by Mandela in South Africa and the fact that we knew this was to stop people from beginning a movement against the government, and continues that with the question, "What is the Tucson school district afraid of?" I found that question interesting, especially since it seemed to teach the students public discourse where the students used their rights to express their opinions. This topic appears to me as a topic that should be taught from the very beginnings of school. Learning about everyone's cultures. How we came to be a nation, especially with the history down there. Unless the teacher is sending the message that Mexican-Americans should begin a revolt to make this area part of Mexico again, what is the problem? We want our students to be critical thinkers and learn how to make decisions. That is the big push with 21st century skills. This hinders that ability by only allowing one view be taught with critical discussions. Rather, the students will read on their own in the libraries and create their own opinions with no guidance.
The next topic was very disheartening and a hot topic in the news today with the controversy over same-sex marriage. It is sad and disheartening that it has to be about this. The fact of the matter is there is a large percentage of people that fall into the LGBTQ category. There is no need to dance around it. The articles that included arguments against the teachings about this were majority religious people. Schools are supposed to separate church and state. There is no reason not to. However, in my school (since this is probably the only sort of diversity that we have) the principle gets extremely nervous and discourages teaching about anything with this topic because of parents. One time, we watched Channel One and it spoke to creating alliances and he had a fit. His argument was maybe it would be okay for older children. However, we had several students in that grade that were already speaking about being gay. I believe, as did several other teachers, that if we danced around the topic the unknown is weird to the overall student population and the students would get bullied.
Overall, my impression is that a lot of times touchy subjects are not taught because parents might get angry. However, they are/become touchy because they have always been the topics that educators and the general population skirt around. If intertwined into the curriculum in subtle ways, overtime, these topics become less touchy. If parents object to this, then I agree with the articles that parents should have the right to have their kid set aside for that. Or if it involves a reading lesson or something, an alternative approach. Similar to students that have certain religious beliefs that sit out during the pledge or during celebrations.
Extension
This is a book that could be used to teach multiple persepectives in a Social Studies classroom. I had to read it in my MLE program and it was by far the most interesting book I had read to that time about Social Studies because this was the FIRST time I was exposed to information that was not the classic british, american, male point of view. There are numerous books that he makes. There are numerous GLCE's that would work for this and other touchy subjects in Middle Grades such as
7 – H1.2.4
Compare and evaluate competing historical perspectives about the past based on proof.
http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Volume/dp/1583227598
Sunday, October 13, 2013
TE 818- Unconventional Teaching Final Thoughts
The articles, videos, and discussions of this theme have left me thinking about what schools should look like in the United States. The one thing that is clear to myself is that I do not think the traditional approach of education that we use with intense graduation requirements truly create college and career readiness. I do believe that students need a well rounded education, but I still find myself asking why students would need classes like Physics, Algebra II, Anatomy, etc if said student was not going into that career field. Especially when students are missing out on opportunities that involve technology, finance, etc that is almost guaranteed to be in their future at some point. It is also important to realize that information is more available to people than in the past with the internet at their fingertips. So what would be the best change for schools? I am still not sure of the answer to this. However, I would think that there would be some balance between a thematic/career focused classroom and instruction in basic skills. I wonder if it would be possible, without completely overhauling the US Education system to do this. For example, what if for half of the day skills taught in math (which could include finance instead of Trig or Algebra II), ELA, Government, etc could be taught. That way, if a student was poor in a subject such as math and knew they were not going to be tracked in a career that involved a lot of math could take slower, more in depth classes to ensure that students had their skills mastered up to a certain realistic point such as Algebra I or Geometry. While also ensuring that students get classes in public discourse and other basic necessities that are necessary for a successful life. On the other half of the day students could work on projects that are more career/project focused. Allowing students to work more in depth in skills that they are passionate about. The part of the day that is devoted to their passion could include more direct instruction at higher level classes as well as in depth projects. Students would learn soft skills such as creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking. By no means is this idea perfect, but just a thought at how we could create opportunities for students to have a more specialized, interesting time in school.
Side Note: I use math examples all the time because I am the most comfortable and knowledgeable with the math curriculum.
Side Note: I use math examples all the time because I am the most comfortable and knowledgeable with the math curriculum.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Theme 3a Extension
As I was reading the posts of my fellow peers tonight I realized that I did not post an extension! I am going to blame this on pregnancy brain!! As soon as I realized, I immediately knew what I wanted to post because this last weeks topic really intrigued me.
http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ThisWeBelieve.aspx#122516-the-16-characteristics
These are the characteristics that are spoken about in the book "This We Believe" provided by the Association of Middle Level Education. In my Middle Level Program in undergrad we lived by these goals and focuses. I found that you could argue for all of these focuses in the arguments provided by each of the articles/videos that we read today. The characteristics really do catch the spirit of what school should be about. The characteristics are at the above link. However, the book is definitely worth a quick read!
http://www.amle.org/AboutAMLE/ThisWeBelieve.aspx#122516-the-16-characteristics
These are the characteristics that are spoken about in the book "This We Believe" provided by the Association of Middle Level Education. In my Middle Level Program in undergrad we lived by these goals and focuses. I found that you could argue for all of these focuses in the arguments provided by each of the articles/videos that we read today. The characteristics really do catch the spirit of what school should be about. The characteristics are at the above link. However, the book is definitely worth a quick read!
Sunday, October 6, 2013
TE 818- What Schools Should Teach? Unconventional Methods
This week throughout the readings there were several messages that came across loud and clear. The first thought is what are schools teaching now? Eisner created a strong argument that there are many messages taught in school that are "numerous, subtle, and consistent." (88) Many of these messages (such as compliance, competitiveness, and a timetable) are created through the use of a traditional curriculum. The question that remains, is a traditional curriculum the best system for the future? Sugatra Mitra argued that it is not. He spoke to the idea that schools are outspoken and were created for a "Bureaucratic Administrative Machine" that was necessary in the past for survival.
Throughout the readings/videos there were several ideas and concepts for new schools. Mitra argued that with new technology (computers and internet) and a coach that doesn't have to be trained in the specific skill, students are able to teach themselves if posed with a "sexy" way of learning. He shows proof that students posed with questions were able to learn a subject way beyond their years. However, these students were only focused on that one question, thematic learning. Mulgan spoke to a project completed in England where schools were created for 14-19 year olds that focused on job specific skills. The work experience was intertwined with the study of the subjects, creating a hands-on experience where bored students were able to see life connections and jumped from the bottom performers to the top. Several others speak to the fact that schools lack in training in computers. When almost all jobs and people use computers on a daily basis, why aren't students taught how to use coding, the basics of operating programs and computers? Then finally, a poll on parents shows that they do not believe schools teach skills to create good character such as higher well-being, building stronger relationships, manage finances, being healthy, and being involved in the community.
All of the previous ideas and concepts are extremely thought provoking. Times have certainly changed and the requirements needed for jobs have changed dramatically. Children do not have the patience that we had when we were young with the internet at the tips of their fingers. However, what is the right way? I feel that it is important for students to have a basic knowledge and exposure to all subjects. If they did not, how would one really find a passion for a subject in their future? I truly liked the idea of the school created in England. By the time a student is getting to the age of 14 they should have a general idea of their likes and could start working on a more hands on way in topics of passion. At least then, if they decide they dislike it, they did not waste thousands of dollars and time at a university. I also don't find that all students really need to learn all subjects to the depth we force in the traditional curriculum. If a student knows they are going to work in a business world why do they need to take biology and anatomy? It would definitely then be possible to have a "coach" help guide students to learning by self exploration like Mitra spoke of. This would be possible due to the students connections to real life, the increased passion the student would have for that subject, and the plethora of information that students can find on the internet that they no longer need a teacher to tell them.
Throughout the readings/videos there were several ideas and concepts for new schools. Mitra argued that with new technology (computers and internet) and a coach that doesn't have to be trained in the specific skill, students are able to teach themselves if posed with a "sexy" way of learning. He shows proof that students posed with questions were able to learn a subject way beyond their years. However, these students were only focused on that one question, thematic learning. Mulgan spoke to a project completed in England where schools were created for 14-19 year olds that focused on job specific skills. The work experience was intertwined with the study of the subjects, creating a hands-on experience where bored students were able to see life connections and jumped from the bottom performers to the top. Several others speak to the fact that schools lack in training in computers. When almost all jobs and people use computers on a daily basis, why aren't students taught how to use coding, the basics of operating programs and computers? Then finally, a poll on parents shows that they do not believe schools teach skills to create good character such as higher well-being, building stronger relationships, manage finances, being healthy, and being involved in the community.
All of the previous ideas and concepts are extremely thought provoking. Times have certainly changed and the requirements needed for jobs have changed dramatically. Children do not have the patience that we had when we were young with the internet at the tips of their fingers. However, what is the right way? I feel that it is important for students to have a basic knowledge and exposure to all subjects. If they did not, how would one really find a passion for a subject in their future? I truly liked the idea of the school created in England. By the time a student is getting to the age of 14 they should have a general idea of their likes and could start working on a more hands on way in topics of passion. At least then, if they decide they dislike it, they did not waste thousands of dollars and time at a university. I also don't find that all students really need to learn all subjects to the depth we force in the traditional curriculum. If a student knows they are going to work in a business world why do they need to take biology and anatomy? It would definitely then be possible to have a "coach" help guide students to learning by self exploration like Mitra spoke of. This would be possible due to the students connections to real life, the increased passion the student would have for that subject, and the plethora of information that students can find on the internet that they no longer need a teacher to tell them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)