Sesame Street has been an American institution for many since it inception. I do see the impact of this show in my children’s lives and the lives of my students. You see the difference between children who have watched the show and know their letters and numbers and those that don’t. It definitely gives students a running start at the beginning of kindergarten. I did an informal pole of kindergarteners and 2nd graders and was pleased to see that 70% of these students had watched Sesame Street. Not surprising were a few friends who are struggling were among the ones that hadn’t watched the show.
I was really surprised by the Green Schools article. I was hoping to see that the building of green schools made a significant difference. Unfortunately, that was not the case. It was interesting to see yet another way schools are used for reform.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Threat of Cultural Pluralism
A new policy in our school system that exerts social control is the implementation of Standard School Attire. Our students have to wear khaki, blue or black pants with no cargo pockets, a solid collared shirt and a belt. One of the reasons for this new policy is to eliminate inappropriate clothing and styles. The hope was by removing clothing “issues” that students would be able to concentrate on academics. In the elementary schools, we do see a big difference in behavior on non SSA days. Kids do get crazy. Now is that because of the clothes or the fact that it is a special day is hard to say but the result is the same. Another hope was that the economic disparities would not be noticeable. However, this can still often be seen in the same outfit being worn daily or being dirty, but on the whole there is less distinction between our economically disadvantaged students and more advantaged students.
Our curriculum doesn’t focus on cultures. With the emphases on standardized test, history seems to take a back seat. I collaborate with my teachers and realize that when taking about Tennessee history, we do include Native Americans and African Americans, but it is still from the “white” perspective. I hope to start incorporating a more multicultural perspective in my lessons.
While I try to have a collection that is multicultural, I see that I have many holes. However, given the small amount of money I get to purchase new books in my library, I do have to weight the needs of our students. I do bring in books written by authors of different cultures but the choices are still limited in children’s literature. I do strive to have a multicultural biography collection and hope to increase my teaching from a multicultural perspective.
Our curriculum doesn’t focus on cultures. With the emphases on standardized test, history seems to take a back seat. I collaborate with my teachers and realize that when taking about Tennessee history, we do include Native Americans and African Americans, but it is still from the “white” perspective. I hope to start incorporating a more multicultural perspective in my lessons.
While I try to have a collection that is multicultural, I see that I have many holes. However, given the small amount of money I get to purchase new books in my library, I do have to weight the needs of our students. I do bring in books written by authors of different cultures but the choices are still limited in children’s literature. I do strive to have a multicultural biography collection and hope to increase my teaching from a multicultural perspective.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Nationalism and Multiculture
This week’s articles had be saying “what are they talking about”. Reading Pittissippi, I couldn’t believe there is actually a group that wants to clea.r out the Pacific Northwest for the Aryan race. This type of hatred is foreign to me. I don’t understand how people can be so narrow-minded and full of hate toward another person.
As for the second article, I again said to myself, “What are they talking about?”, but for a very different reason. I really had a hard time grasping what they were talking about. If they mean that each culture needs to be in its own “area” I’m not sure how this would be multicultural, wouldn’t it be distinct cultures. I did agree with the lunacy of education in the language of origin. Regardless of the problems with how to determine origin, this seems to be a narrow view of things. If someone is living in a particular country, should they be taught in that language. If the family wants to teach a language of origin that can certainly been done at home, but if you live in a country you should be able to converse in that countries language, which probably means it being taught in schools.
Happily, the third article was a seemingly unbiased, comprehendible one. It did have me thinking about the how to represent the many different perspectives of history. I think the key is to keep an open dialogue about the different perspectives that cultures might have.
Learning about our neighbors and view of life is a great thing.
Multiculturalism to me means the peaceful cohabitation and representation of all cultures and races. That maybe an idealistic view, but I think we were all created in God’s image and we can live happily together. The crux is being accepting of others. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything another does but we can learn from each other. Imagine a world where we share the best of ourselves with our fellow man, Heaven.
As for the second article, I again said to myself, “What are they talking about?”, but for a very different reason. I really had a hard time grasping what they were talking about. If they mean that each culture needs to be in its own “area” I’m not sure how this would be multicultural, wouldn’t it be distinct cultures. I did agree with the lunacy of education in the language of origin. Regardless of the problems with how to determine origin, this seems to be a narrow view of things. If someone is living in a particular country, should they be taught in that language. If the family wants to teach a language of origin that can certainly been done at home, but if you live in a country you should be able to converse in that countries language, which probably means it being taught in schools.
Happily, the third article was a seemingly unbiased, comprehendible one. It did have me thinking about the how to represent the many different perspectives of history. I think the key is to keep an open dialogue about the different perspectives that cultures might have.
Learning about our neighbors and view of life is a great thing.
Multiculturalism to me means the peaceful cohabitation and representation of all cultures and races. That maybe an idealistic view, but I think we were all created in God’s image and we can live happily together. The crux is being accepting of others. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything another does but we can learn from each other. Imagine a world where we share the best of ourselves with our fellow man, Heaven.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Religion and Schools
Religion and Schools: The Debate Heats Up 2009
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2009/1/22/religion-in-schools-debate-heats-up.html
Library of Congress Artifact
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/AMALL:@field(DOCID+@lit(mcc/016))
In the “Debate Heats Up” article, a moment of silence is questioned regarding the separation of church and state, while in the LoC Artifact the issue of personal freedom of speech and religion is the hot topic. This seems to be the two sides of the same coin. Either we have separation of church and state and nothing remotely religious is allowed or it is allowed under personal freedoms. It seems to me that it all depends on the language of the case.
I was surprised that all students were required to say the pledge. Not all students are citizens; I don’t believe this is a requirement for public school education. I know in our school that we ask for everyone to participate but we do have friends that do not based on religious beliefs. I have a hard time when students just don’t want to, does that fall under freedom of speech or just defiance.
I am not sure how a moment of silence is considered religious. Yes, a student may pray if they would like but they can also just sit still and not talk during that time. Shouldn’t we encourage our student to take a minute to just stop and think. Many of our students have a hard time just “being” even if only for a few minutes. This should not be a bad thing.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2009/1/22/religion-in-schools-debate-heats-up.html
Library of Congress Artifact
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/AMALL:@field(DOCID+@lit(mcc/016))
In the “Debate Heats Up” article, a moment of silence is questioned regarding the separation of church and state, while in the LoC Artifact the issue of personal freedom of speech and religion is the hot topic. This seems to be the two sides of the same coin. Either we have separation of church and state and nothing remotely religious is allowed or it is allowed under personal freedoms. It seems to me that it all depends on the language of the case.
I was surprised that all students were required to say the pledge. Not all students are citizens; I don’t believe this is a requirement for public school education. I know in our school that we ask for everyone to participate but we do have friends that do not based on religious beliefs. I have a hard time when students just don’t want to, does that fall under freedom of speech or just defiance.
I am not sure how a moment of silence is considered religious. Yes, a student may pray if they would like but they can also just sit still and not talk during that time. Shouldn’t we encourage our student to take a minute to just stop and think. Many of our students have a hard time just “being” even if only for a few minutes. This should not be a bad thing.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Innovators and the "Makers"
Innovators and the “Makers”
Education "Innovators" http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/innovators/index.html
The Real "Makers" of Public School http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm
I was so impressed and humbled to read about all the innovators in education. What an inspiration these Americans are trying to make a difference in the lives of children and succeeding. My personal favorite innovator was Deborah Meier. She emphasized active learning. This seems to be the exception these days. I see active learning as hands on learning, throwing away the handouts and getting the kids thinking and doing. She fostered teacher autonomy, gave parents a voice and promoted a family-oriented system. I am with her on being a critic of state-mandated standards and tests. Our new administration has stated that of course we should teach to the test, because the standards we are to cover are what are tested, therefore we should be teaching the standards and to the test. What we should be teaching is how to think, the process not just the facts. We should be fostering the creation of learners and thinkers not just regurgitators of facts.
The “maker” I choose was John D. Rockefeller. I know of him for philanthropy and greatly impressed with all the contributions he has made. However, reading in Gatto’s book about his General Education Board mission, I might have to rethink this. I was shocked to read about “people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands…we will organize children… and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.” (Gatto, 2009, p. 8) This seems to be the direct opposite of philanthropy. I view philanthropy as help others for the greater good, and I don’t see how this is the greater good. It seems they want obedience not thinkers. Unfortunately, the General Education Board may have in fact fulfilled their mission.
Does innovator mean thinker and maker mean subservience?
For more information on John D. Rockefeller visit http://johndrockefeller.org/
Education "Innovators" http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/innovators/index.html
The Real "Makers" of Public School http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm
I was so impressed and humbled to read about all the innovators in education. What an inspiration these Americans are trying to make a difference in the lives of children and succeeding. My personal favorite innovator was Deborah Meier. She emphasized active learning. This seems to be the exception these days. I see active learning as hands on learning, throwing away the handouts and getting the kids thinking and doing. She fostered teacher autonomy, gave parents a voice and promoted a family-oriented system. I am with her on being a critic of state-mandated standards and tests. Our new administration has stated that of course we should teach to the test, because the standards we are to cover are what are tested, therefore we should be teaching the standards and to the test. What we should be teaching is how to think, the process not just the facts. We should be fostering the creation of learners and thinkers not just regurgitators of facts.
The “maker” I choose was John D. Rockefeller. I know of him for philanthropy and greatly impressed with all the contributions he has made. However, reading in Gatto’s book about his General Education Board mission, I might have to rethink this. I was shocked to read about “people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands…we will organize children… and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.” (Gatto, 2009, p. 8) This seems to be the direct opposite of philanthropy. I view philanthropy as help others for the greater good, and I don’t see how this is the greater good. It seems they want obedience not thinkers. Unfortunately, the General Education Board may have in fact fulfilled their mission.
Does innovator mean thinker and maker mean subservience?
For more information on John D. Rockefeller visit http://johndrockefeller.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)