The entries posted within this blog are typically research-based. However, this entry will be on a personal level. Consider it an editorial.
I frequently get into debates with my friends. Whether it is politics, current events, or religion, it quickly becomes heated. Yet, we all consider this normal and get over our differences afterward.
Our last debate rested squarely on Intelligent Design (ID). I defended it, even though I have a strong background in mathematics and science. No, I am not a fundamentalist who wishes to live in Kansas and revolutionize science by re-tooling science classes by injecting Christianity via Intelligent Design. Not even IntelligentDesign.org advocates its teaching in public schools. Instead, I believe ID is a useful tool.
Let me drive this thought using two thrusts. First, ID is useful in that it brings us to the boundaries of science, involves many members of society to reflect on public education, and invites us all to become involved in a process of making reformations in education. Second, it dovetails nicely into the energies spent by our presidential candidates, who advocate for many changes within education.
A friend of mine who teaches science, wrote, "The philosophy that says that science has the final say over all knowledge – which sounds fairly fundamentalist to me – is known as scientism, for which there is no scientific evidence." He was trying to make a distinction regarding a certain philosophy of science extremism versus the application of pure science.
The conversation hit on infinities, the fact that ID rests beyond scientific principles, and another fact that science is a philosophy. The e-mail communications did a great job unveiling science for what it is: a philosophy of empiricism and/or an ability to observe, measure, and interact with one’s environment. As a result of this philosophy and carrying out the process, certain properties of the universe can be discovered.
However, science carries out a number of theories that are not directly visible. Tools are used, particles are measured through the interaction of other particles, and mathematical systems are constructed and then consequently solved to predict phenomena. Direct observability is not always done, making such acts targets for debate from within and without of the science community.
Couple this with public misconceptions, complete ignorance, and the duty of science of refute counterclaims. The result is science education needs to devote itself to shoring up these problem areas that exist in societies, especially in communities that believe heavily in non-scientific explanations of our universe.
Science education needs to address this and can do so by changing the way it teaches science or at least incorporating crucial lessons that could address the differences between non-science and science.
What, you don’t trust the opinions of this educator?
Look at what Professor Michael Reiss has to say. He writes, “If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.”
Look at Miriam-Webster’s first definition of science, the first definition states, “the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
If we compare this great country to other countries in the world, it certainly is not number one. According to the 1999 Third International Math and Science Study (TIMMS), the U.S. was significantly beaten by 14 countries in science (3 countries non-significantly) and 14 countries in mathematics (4 countries non-significantly). It is clear there is certainly a lot of misconception for us to deal with and maybe we should look at science education.
When I first studied science, I thought I was learning something very fundamental to that which informed human beings must know. It was a mighty subject with infinite potential. I still think it to be so.
Science has its place and sure does come with striking potential for the good it does for solving our problems. Nevertheless, it does not come without drawbacks. It too must be kept in check by the other disciplines that exist. Having science exist as an isolated study on its own brings limits to it, and consequent perils.
It is not to say we shouldn't teach it. It isn't to say kids shouldn't learn it. It is to say that we need to teach its limits and the balance of knowledge within the framework of all bodies of knowledge. Doing this brings wondrous possibilities to learning/teaching and the disciplines themselves.
If we do not glimpse beyond our barriers and show the limits of our disciplines, do we really do them justice? Also, how do we get kids to think outside the box if all we do is present boxes of information to them?
My science teacher friend also wrote:
"[U]s educators know full well the push in education science is for interdisciplinary discovery in order to more closely represent real life. So mark's heart is in the right place and there are legit arguments about where the boundaries of science are, but in our utilitarian education system which is raising servants for the man, we have no room for philosophy and barely room for arts, etc."
This is unfortunate, but true. Science curricula are not free to be easily manipulated by adding units that could address this science vs. non-discussion. Curricula exist under a great number of forces that seek to change it, such as the preparation for state-mandated testing, bridging students from one area of science to the next level or area, and making sure students possess basic skills for movement into the workforce. Since the units cannot easily be changed, how teachers introduce their lessons must be addressed, which requires a great deal of finesse.
Yet, we make a great argument for breaking thresholds for learning and teaching, but how far do we go in reality? Aren't we all very traditional teachers? Despite my chagrin over this topic and desire to be unique and innovative, I'm quite traditional. I want to break outside the box, but doing so makes me feel like I'm punching pillows. How do we push past our boundaries and create lessons that are truly awe-inspiring and motivators for life-long learning?
Is what we are doing practical, meaning applicable to living in the modern world with its fast-paced changes? It is questionable. I think we all impart tidbits of knowledge, maintain order in the classroom, and hope for the best. Is there a concerted movement to change? Despite NCLB and our best intentions, we have yet to change. Part of it is getting over our inertia to make change, which may stem from a lack of desire to change or a lack of knowledge of how to change.
ID, despite the thoughts one may have on the subject, certain does stir up the hornet's nest, which initiates change. It may be the energy needed to get us past this educational inertia
A comment was made during the debates by a moderator: the U.S. spends more money per capita than any other country in the world. Yet, our output – in light of numerous studies from independent organizations – state that other countries do better than us.
Instead of citing false arguments about racial differences, economic disparities, tax laws, and other pointless lines of defense to maintain the status quo, we need to look at things differently. We are failing students if we continue to be out produced by students in other countries.
If teachers including myself were to be graded based on the money we spend and the output we produce in education, we certainly would not be walking away with "A"s. Would we be able to defend our benefits and our salaries?
I guess I should shut up. I guess teachers, administrator, and state legislators should simply collect our paychecks and keep doing the same old thing. I guess parents should continue to create babies but be unwilling to take a stake in their development in reaching adulthood. Why rock the boat when it is so profitable and it works so well?
Our candidates do not agree with such complacency. Obama is for merit pay and Charter Schools. McCain goes further and wants to include vouchers as an option. I cannot argue against any of these as they initiate change and provide a vehicle for ongoing dialogue between all members of society.
Intelligent Design may be a lightening rod for debate, but the state of education in the United States could certainly benefit from the jolts.
Resources
Intelligent Design Website on Education: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/education.php.
Professor Michael Reiss: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism.
TIMMS Report: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Guns, The Supreme Court, and Calm Reflection
The American Association of School Administrators published my Letter to the Editor in its August issue (AASA, 2008). The issue is related to guns. Considering the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling, which supports the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, the letter carries extra value. The unedited version of my letter can be read immediately below.
I read an article, titled Guns and Butter: Stepping Up to the Plate, written by Sarah Jerome from the December 2007 issue of The School Administrator. Sarah’s views rest on personal beliefs and not on facts.
She wrote, “Perhaps the presence of 223 million firearms in the United States or the fact that one in four households has a handgun elevates this issue to the status of a public health crisis.” It is not a public crisis of any kind. In fact, there is a body of research that suggests more guns equates to less crime.
In education, we must adhere to facts and legitimate research. We cannot make jumps in reasoning from a set of facts to a conclusion when no correlation has been proven. If Sarah wasn’t the AASA president, I would assume she was guilty of faulty reasoning. However, her achievement as president makes me consider that her intent is deceptive.
She wrote, “Our apparent paralysis to end gun violence continues.” What Sarah needs to do is this. She needs to read Kate Stetzner’s June 1999 article titled, How Safe Are Your Schools? Doing so will help her realize how solving the problem can be done. It does not involve ignoring the 2nd Amendment, like she proposes. It does involve a concerted effort between many organizations, agencies, and institutions.
When we deal with truancy, create positive learning environments, support anti-gang initiatives, and maintain curfew laws, we will make strides with safety in schools and communities. I fully support all of Kate’s proposed initiatives, not Sarah’s simple but erred proposal to strip us of our constitutional rights.
Resource
AASA (2008) The School Administrator. Number 7, Volume 65: The Ingredients for Leadership.
I read an article, titled Guns and Butter: Stepping Up to the Plate, written by Sarah Jerome from the December 2007 issue of The School Administrator. Sarah’s views rest on personal beliefs and not on facts.
She wrote, “Perhaps the presence of 223 million firearms in the United States or the fact that one in four households has a handgun elevates this issue to the status of a public health crisis.” It is not a public crisis of any kind. In fact, there is a body of research that suggests more guns equates to less crime.
In education, we must adhere to facts and legitimate research. We cannot make jumps in reasoning from a set of facts to a conclusion when no correlation has been proven. If Sarah wasn’t the AASA president, I would assume she was guilty of faulty reasoning. However, her achievement as president makes me consider that her intent is deceptive.
She wrote, “Our apparent paralysis to end gun violence continues.” What Sarah needs to do is this. She needs to read Kate Stetzner’s June 1999 article titled, How Safe Are Your Schools? Doing so will help her realize how solving the problem can be done. It does not involve ignoring the 2nd Amendment, like she proposes. It does involve a concerted effort between many organizations, agencies, and institutions.
When we deal with truancy, create positive learning environments, support anti-gang initiatives, and maintain curfew laws, we will make strides with safety in schools and communities. I fully support all of Kate’s proposed initiatives, not Sarah’s simple but erred proposal to strip us of our constitutional rights.
Resource
AASA (2008) The School Administrator. Number 7, Volume 65: The Ingredients for Leadership.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Education and the Election
This presidential election cycle is extremely chaotic. McCain started out slowly, but then overwhelmed his competitors and obtained control of the Republican delegates. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is struggling between Clinton and Obama. Obama has a slight advantage with democratic delegates, but each requires “superdelegates” to clinch the party.
There are many issues that can help a voter decide who to support in this race, but I will bring a few points to light. Some of these points may help a voter to decide who to support. Whether this information may help primary voters within the Democratic Party or the full out presidential election in November, the candidates’ views on education may be surprising.
Regardless if one is a supporter of conservatives or liberals, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, candidates across these spectra have something in common. This commonality should be of great interest to parents, teachers, and taxpayers. What is it? They all believe there is a need to bring change within education.
This change is not subtle, even if certain candidates do not boldly mention their intentions. Here are some of their views on education, in alpha order by candidate.
Hilary Clinton
She supports school choice, charter schools, and alternative routes to teacher certification (Clinton, 2008)
John McCain
He believes in vouchers, which would allow parents the ability to send schools to a variety of performing schools. He supports merit pay. This means he wants to reward teachers for extra effort. He also believes in homeschooling (The Des Moines Register, n.d.). He wants to assist math, science, and engineering education (The Des Moines Register, n.d.)
Barack Obama
He supports merit pay (Fitzgerald, 2007 & Davis and Miller, 2007 & Marcus, 2007).
All the candidates agree on one thing: No Child Left Behind needs to be changed. Some candidates feel more strongly about this than others. Some candidates want to alter or adjust it; other candidates want to throw it out and start fresh (Light, 2008).
Regardless of one’s choice for a candidate, business as usual is not on any of the candidates’ agendas. As an administrator, I find this to be refreshing. It is my personal hope that teachers who are directly in the trenches will acknowledge these sentiments for change. Consequently, there needs to be pedagogical shifts to propel education toward modernization.
When all of these candidates resonate on the need for change within schools, it is a clear indication of the electorate’s dissatisfaction. It must also follow that schools should unite in this purpose so as not to entirely forfeit what we know as public education. It is time for educators to stop thinking public education – at least the way it is currently constructed – will be immune to outside forces that are demanding reconstruction.
Be an informed voter. Study the issues and choose accordingly.
Resources
Clinton, H. (2008) Official Senate Website. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/education/index.cfm?topic=elementary
Davis, T. and Miller, S. (2007) Obama Bucks Party Line on Education: '08 Democrat Pushes Performance-Based Pay. ABC News. Accessed on March 8th, 2008 at: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3894699&page=1
The Des Moines Register (n.d.) John McCain: Education. YouTube. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DUM4CwkiE
The Des Moines Register (n.d.) McCain on Education. YouTube. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXUar_RQ0JU&feature=related
Fitzgerald, T. (2007) Obama Tells Teachers He Supports Merit Pay. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/8335627.html
Light, N (2008) Education Experts Critique Candidates' Policies. Kansas City InfoZine. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/27328/
Marcus, R. (2007) From Barack Obama, Two Dangerous Words. Washington Post. Accessed on March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001304.html
There are many issues that can help a voter decide who to support in this race, but I will bring a few points to light. Some of these points may help a voter to decide who to support. Whether this information may help primary voters within the Democratic Party or the full out presidential election in November, the candidates’ views on education may be surprising.
Regardless if one is a supporter of conservatives or liberals, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, candidates across these spectra have something in common. This commonality should be of great interest to parents, teachers, and taxpayers. What is it? They all believe there is a need to bring change within education.
This change is not subtle, even if certain candidates do not boldly mention their intentions. Here are some of their views on education, in alpha order by candidate.
Hilary Clinton
She supports school choice, charter schools, and alternative routes to teacher certification (Clinton, 2008)
John McCain
He believes in vouchers, which would allow parents the ability to send schools to a variety of performing schools. He supports merit pay. This means he wants to reward teachers for extra effort. He also believes in homeschooling (The Des Moines Register, n.d.). He wants to assist math, science, and engineering education (The Des Moines Register, n.d.)
Barack Obama
He supports merit pay (Fitzgerald, 2007 & Davis and Miller, 2007 & Marcus, 2007).
All the candidates agree on one thing: No Child Left Behind needs to be changed. Some candidates feel more strongly about this than others. Some candidates want to alter or adjust it; other candidates want to throw it out and start fresh (Light, 2008).
Regardless of one’s choice for a candidate, business as usual is not on any of the candidates’ agendas. As an administrator, I find this to be refreshing. It is my personal hope that teachers who are directly in the trenches will acknowledge these sentiments for change. Consequently, there needs to be pedagogical shifts to propel education toward modernization.
When all of these candidates resonate on the need for change within schools, it is a clear indication of the electorate’s dissatisfaction. It must also follow that schools should unite in this purpose so as not to entirely forfeit what we know as public education. It is time for educators to stop thinking public education – at least the way it is currently constructed – will be immune to outside forces that are demanding reconstruction.
Be an informed voter. Study the issues and choose accordingly.
Resources
Clinton, H. (2008) Official Senate Website. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/education/index.cfm?topic=elementary
Davis, T. and Miller, S. (2007) Obama Bucks Party Line on Education: '08 Democrat Pushes Performance-Based Pay. ABC News. Accessed on March 8th, 2008 at: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3894699&page=1
The Des Moines Register (n.d.) John McCain: Education. YouTube. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DUM4CwkiE
The Des Moines Register (n.d.) McCain on Education. YouTube. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXUar_RQ0JU&feature=related
Fitzgerald, T. (2007) Obama Tells Teachers He Supports Merit Pay. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/8335627.html
Light, N (2008) Education Experts Critique Candidates' Policies. Kansas City InfoZine. Accessed March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/27328/
Marcus, R. (2007) From Barack Obama, Two Dangerous Words. Washington Post. Accessed on March 8th, 2008 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001304.html
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Ramping Up Rigor
There has been a considerable amount of fervor concerning rigor within educational communities.
Educators have responded to the low ability and achievement of students in schools, ever since A Nation At Risk was released (NCEE, 1983). The report exposed problems such as dwindling career prep and vocational education programs, a low number of required hours of students in school, and textbooks used lack effective content.
Clearly, the report addressed a lack of rigor. Consequently, standards were adopted, benchmarks were set, and state boards of education implemented high-stakes tests.
A recent ACT’s report, called Rigor At Risk (2007), provided shocking information. Of the grade 11 students who took core courses and were tested in 2006, only 26% of those students met all four benchmarks: English, mathematics, social science, and natural science. 19% of these same students did not meet the benchmarks in any of these areas.
Research indicates educators must be careful how they respond to the reports gained from high-stakes tests.
“When high schools attempt to raise pass rates with skill-and-drill remedial routines geared narrowly to the test, conditions that nurture high levels of motivation and engagement are eliminated” (Grubb & Oakes, 2007).
Research by Brewster & Fager (2000) can be used to address motivation and engagement. They provided information on what needs to be done in classrooms and school districts. Their work includes allowing teachers to create student-centered learning opportunities, making students feel welcomed and supported, and developing a school climate that encourages creativity.
Grubb and Oakes’ (2007) work further invite educators to reinvent schools so that they no longer reflect the 19th Century model that exists all too commonly today. They suggest pathways for students to follow. Whether occupationally or non-occupationally theme-based, student interest can be bolstered as instruction becomes geared toward real-life problems and situations.
To enter into a mindset supportive of the research, one should reflect on Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework (2006). This structure indicates learning should be geared toward students creating work that reflects real-world situations and open-ended problems. As explained by Armstrong (2007), this matches advances in cognitive psychology. Learning involving the creation of products is a great motivator and it addresses higher order thinking.
According to Muller and Chait (2006), rigor is, “…an educational experience that leads to a common outcome – that all students are well prepared for post-secondary education, career and civic life.” Muller and Chait also add that rigor is to include a high level content and instruction and an alignment of requirements with post-secondary education and work.
It appears to be apparent how rigor is to be increased. When approached within the context of real-world problems imbedded within school structures that support themes, rigor can be sustained and grown. Rigor is not an isolated variable that can be improved upon without also creating a sustaining habitat for it.
Resources
ACT (2007) Rigor At Risk: Reaffirming Quality in the High School Core Curriculum. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/rigor_report.pdf.
Armstrong, P. (2007) Bloom’s Taxonomy. Accessed online on December 25th, 2007 at: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/theory/blooms.htm.
Brewster, C. & Fager, J. (2000) Increasing Student Engagement and Motivation: From Time-on-Task to Homework. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/textonly.html.
Daggett, W. (2006) Rigor/Relevance Framework. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.daggett.com/rigor.shtml.
Grubb, W. & Oakes, J. (2007) ‘Restoring Value’ To The High School Diploma: The Rhetoric And Practice Of Higher Standards. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0710-242-EPRU.pdf.
Muller, R. & Chait, R. (2006) Defining Rigor in High School. Prepared for the National High School Alliance. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.hsalliance.org/_downloads/NNCO/RigorFrameworkTool.pdf.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A Nation At Risk. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
Educators have responded to the low ability and achievement of students in schools, ever since A Nation At Risk was released (NCEE, 1983). The report exposed problems such as dwindling career prep and vocational education programs, a low number of required hours of students in school, and textbooks used lack effective content.
Clearly, the report addressed a lack of rigor. Consequently, standards were adopted, benchmarks were set, and state boards of education implemented high-stakes tests.
A recent ACT’s report, called Rigor At Risk (2007), provided shocking information. Of the grade 11 students who took core courses and were tested in 2006, only 26% of those students met all four benchmarks: English, mathematics, social science, and natural science. 19% of these same students did not meet the benchmarks in any of these areas.
Research indicates educators must be careful how they respond to the reports gained from high-stakes tests.
“When high schools attempt to raise pass rates with skill-and-drill remedial routines geared narrowly to the test, conditions that nurture high levels of motivation and engagement are eliminated” (Grubb & Oakes, 2007).
Research by Brewster & Fager (2000) can be used to address motivation and engagement. They provided information on what needs to be done in classrooms and school districts. Their work includes allowing teachers to create student-centered learning opportunities, making students feel welcomed and supported, and developing a school climate that encourages creativity.
Grubb and Oakes’ (2007) work further invite educators to reinvent schools so that they no longer reflect the 19th Century model that exists all too commonly today. They suggest pathways for students to follow. Whether occupationally or non-occupationally theme-based, student interest can be bolstered as instruction becomes geared toward real-life problems and situations.
To enter into a mindset supportive of the research, one should reflect on Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework (2006). This structure indicates learning should be geared toward students creating work that reflects real-world situations and open-ended problems. As explained by Armstrong (2007), this matches advances in cognitive psychology. Learning involving the creation of products is a great motivator and it addresses higher order thinking.
According to Muller and Chait (2006), rigor is, “…an educational experience that leads to a common outcome – that all students are well prepared for post-secondary education, career and civic life.” Muller and Chait also add that rigor is to include a high level content and instruction and an alignment of requirements with post-secondary education and work.
It appears to be apparent how rigor is to be increased. When approached within the context of real-world problems imbedded within school structures that support themes, rigor can be sustained and grown. Rigor is not an isolated variable that can be improved upon without also creating a sustaining habitat for it.
Resources
ACT (2007) Rigor At Risk: Reaffirming Quality in the High School Core Curriculum. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/rigor_report.pdf.
Armstrong, P. (2007) Bloom’s Taxonomy. Accessed online on December 25th, 2007 at: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/theory/blooms.htm.
Brewster, C. & Fager, J. (2000) Increasing Student Engagement and Motivation: From Time-on-Task to Homework. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/textonly.html.
Daggett, W. (2006) Rigor/Relevance Framework. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.daggett.com/rigor.shtml.
Grubb, W. & Oakes, J. (2007) ‘Restoring Value’ To The High School Diploma: The Rhetoric And Practice Of Higher Standards. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0710-242-EPRU.pdf.
Muller, R. & Chait, R. (2006) Defining Rigor in High School. Prepared for the National High School Alliance. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.hsalliance.org/_downloads/NNCO/RigorFrameworkTool.pdf.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A Nation At Risk. Accessed online on December 15th, 2007 at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Protesters or Hostage Takers?
Recent events at Morton West High School in Berwyn, Illinois have many people concerned. Some students are facing lengthy suspensions and the possibility of being expelled due to their participation in a protest. The protest occurred within the school and during school hours on November 1st.
Are students receiving proper consequences? Have students been properly educated on how to voice their views? Do students have productive outlets for their views? What should the roles of parents be concerning how they need to support their children?
Let it be known, this blog does not entitle me the ability to exercise my right to freedom of speech so that I can voice my personal views on this topic. In fact, no one within the field of education has the right to use their position to inform others on what to think. Parents may be obligated to instill values within their children, but educators must tread carefully here. Parents who want to impose their personal beliefs upon schools would be equally operating without caution.
When teachers discuss history, conflict, critical thinking, and acts of civil disobedience, teachers must present balanced views. They must indicate how laws work, share the rights we have as citizens, and impart a vision of the potential consequences student actions can produce. When teachers address these issues in such a manner, they provide students with opportunities to lead successful, independent lives.
This doesn’t mean educators can't address values. Teachers can draw from current events, literature, texts, experiences, and fiction to help students understand the world around them. Character traits which can assist students to operate in the 21st Century and also change it are within their charge. However, doing so is less of a prescription but more like helping someone undergo a personal journey.
On issues of controversy, teachers must present balanced lessons. Imagine not. Imagine an educational system that does otherwise. We could allow schools to tell children what to think as opposed to how to think. We could tell student which jobs to pursue and train them accordingly. We can narrow their choices and views by our own standards, but at what cost to our schools and our democracy?
On another front, some people charge school authorities of delivering punishments that are too severe. If that is the case, appeals and hearings will draw out those issues. Authorities such as me do not make decisions in a vacuum. We reflect upon time honored rules and protocols, drafted from thoughtful councils, when determining consequences.
Our democracy is not absent of such an adherence to guidelines. There are laws, ordinances, and amendments. The First Amendment may entitle all of us to freedom of speech, but not at the expense of the Fourteenth Amendment, which entitles children and adolescents an education as a property right.
Consequently, school authorities must balance these rights. A responsibility to provide an educational environment that suits the needs of all students, not merely the First Amendment rights of a few students, is the intended goal.
Of the approximate 3,400 students who attend Morton West High School on a daily basis, we must ensure there are procedures in place to help all of them. These procedures include rules for students to follow so that order and safety can be secured.
Therefore, if students are to be educated, parents and teachers must inform them in such a way so as students will understand what consequences are at stake when they protest. I cannot imagine a school that would encourage and allow students to disrupt the educational rights of other students via loud protest. Fortunately, it appears many parents are in agreement with this requirement. Some parents may be disputing the severity of certain charges, but this is not uncommon within the realm of administering discipline.
As Morton West High School progresses through appeals and hearings, dialogue must be ongoing and process must be followed. Teachers must use their creativity to provide students positive outlets of expression. Parents must teach their children of the responsibilities of adulthood. Students must carefully choose which activities they engage themselves.
School leaders will continue to provide crucial programs to guide student engagement. Those programs will include classes and experiences enabling students to pursue a future in the trades, attend college, and enlist in the military. We will continue to provide these opportunities and allow students the ability to make these choices for themselves, not matter how disconcerting this freedom of choice may sit with a few.
Students, parents, teachers, and administrators have a right to personal beliefs but they do not have a right to use their classrooms as indoctrination zones. Personal beliefs must not override a true educator's judgment and cause a lapse in discipline. We could easily allow discipline to be waived under the pretense of good intentions, but what good would come from it? We might be tempted to allow pro-life demonstrating students a pass when they protest. We may allow anti-nuclear protesters a pass. What about students who want to protest less serious matters, like students who want to amass crowds over cold mashed potatoes?
We cannot afford to release our schools to students and parents of students who hold strong political views, one way or the other. We respect the rights and thoughts of students who are pro-war, those who are anti-war, and those who have yet to come to their own conclusions.
Let it not be lost on all of us to respect the educational rights of the majority of students who demand their daily dose of mathematics, science, English, and physical education. We must not allow protesters to take schools hostage, for whatever purpose, no matter how we may personally feel about the issue.
Are students receiving proper consequences? Have students been properly educated on how to voice their views? Do students have productive outlets for their views? What should the roles of parents be concerning how they need to support their children?
Let it be known, this blog does not entitle me the ability to exercise my right to freedom of speech so that I can voice my personal views on this topic. In fact, no one within the field of education has the right to use their position to inform others on what to think. Parents may be obligated to instill values within their children, but educators must tread carefully here. Parents who want to impose their personal beliefs upon schools would be equally operating without caution.
When teachers discuss history, conflict, critical thinking, and acts of civil disobedience, teachers must present balanced views. They must indicate how laws work, share the rights we have as citizens, and impart a vision of the potential consequences student actions can produce. When teachers address these issues in such a manner, they provide students with opportunities to lead successful, independent lives.
This doesn’t mean educators can't address values. Teachers can draw from current events, literature, texts, experiences, and fiction to help students understand the world around them. Character traits which can assist students to operate in the 21st Century and also change it are within their charge. However, doing so is less of a prescription but more like helping someone undergo a personal journey.
On issues of controversy, teachers must present balanced lessons. Imagine not. Imagine an educational system that does otherwise. We could allow schools to tell children what to think as opposed to how to think. We could tell student which jobs to pursue and train them accordingly. We can narrow their choices and views by our own standards, but at what cost to our schools and our democracy?
On another front, some people charge school authorities of delivering punishments that are too severe. If that is the case, appeals and hearings will draw out those issues. Authorities such as me do not make decisions in a vacuum. We reflect upon time honored rules and protocols, drafted from thoughtful councils, when determining consequences.
Our democracy is not absent of such an adherence to guidelines. There are laws, ordinances, and amendments. The First Amendment may entitle all of us to freedom of speech, but not at the expense of the Fourteenth Amendment, which entitles children and adolescents an education as a property right.
Consequently, school authorities must balance these rights. A responsibility to provide an educational environment that suits the needs of all students, not merely the First Amendment rights of a few students, is the intended goal.
Of the approximate 3,400 students who attend Morton West High School on a daily basis, we must ensure there are procedures in place to help all of them. These procedures include rules for students to follow so that order and safety can be secured.
Therefore, if students are to be educated, parents and teachers must inform them in such a way so as students will understand what consequences are at stake when they protest. I cannot imagine a school that would encourage and allow students to disrupt the educational rights of other students via loud protest. Fortunately, it appears many parents are in agreement with this requirement. Some parents may be disputing the severity of certain charges, but this is not uncommon within the realm of administering discipline.
As Morton West High School progresses through appeals and hearings, dialogue must be ongoing and process must be followed. Teachers must use their creativity to provide students positive outlets of expression. Parents must teach their children of the responsibilities of adulthood. Students must carefully choose which activities they engage themselves.
School leaders will continue to provide crucial programs to guide student engagement. Those programs will include classes and experiences enabling students to pursue a future in the trades, attend college, and enlist in the military. We will continue to provide these opportunities and allow students the ability to make these choices for themselves, not matter how disconcerting this freedom of choice may sit with a few.
Students, parents, teachers, and administrators have a right to personal beliefs but they do not have a right to use their classrooms as indoctrination zones. Personal beliefs must not override a true educator's judgment and cause a lapse in discipline. We could easily allow discipline to be waived under the pretense of good intentions, but what good would come from it? We might be tempted to allow pro-life demonstrating students a pass when they protest. We may allow anti-nuclear protesters a pass. What about students who want to protest less serious matters, like students who want to amass crowds over cold mashed potatoes?
We cannot afford to release our schools to students and parents of students who hold strong political views, one way or the other. We respect the rights and thoughts of students who are pro-war, those who are anti-war, and those who have yet to come to their own conclusions.
Let it not be lost on all of us to respect the educational rights of the majority of students who demand their daily dose of mathematics, science, English, and physical education. We must not allow protesters to take schools hostage, for whatever purpose, no matter how we may personally feel about the issue.
Friday, November 02, 2007
IMSA -- Great Minds Program
The Illinois Math and Science Academy in Aurora, Illinois held its Great Minds Program on October 20th, 2007. This specific program was centered on "Learning and the Brain: Where Are We and Where Do We Need to Be?”
There were distinguished presenters who provided information on cognitive brain research. Find details about their work by following the link below.
MATHguide: News for October 28th, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
PSAE -- Prairie State Achievement Test
The PSAE is a test that Illinois high schools give to all of its juniors in April. It is a big deal. The scores of these tests are used to compare one school against the other and schools against state standards.
The PSAE is a two-day event. On day one, students take the ACT, which is a a college aptitude test. On day two, students take the WorkKeys test, which is a readiness to work test. The combination of the two -- college and work preparedness -- gives educators, parents, and students a strong idea of how systems and students are performing and are preparing students for the world they will face after high school.
Despite criticisms of standardized tests within teaching communities, the PSAE is a tool for measuring student success. The curriculum throughout all high schools have been aligned around a set of benchmarks. To measure whether or not schools are meeting the benchmarks, PSAE questions are aligned to the same benchmarks.
Consequently, PSAE reports are very valuable. They can be used to assess individual, school and state progress toward the standards. It can help schools modify curriculum and adjust programs. The test lends itself as a litmus test to student learning.
Since the PSAE shows no signs of going away, schools need to prepare students for it. Educators need to build programs and learning activities to meet the challenges of the PSAE. The below strategies can be used to address the PSAE within every school.
The PSAE is a two-day event. On day one, students take the ACT, which is a a college aptitude test. On day two, students take the WorkKeys test, which is a readiness to work test. The combination of the two -- college and work preparedness -- gives educators, parents, and students a strong idea of how systems and students are performing and are preparing students for the world they will face after high school.
Despite criticisms of standardized tests within teaching communities, the PSAE is a tool for measuring student success. The curriculum throughout all high schools have been aligned around a set of benchmarks. To measure whether or not schools are meeting the benchmarks, PSAE questions are aligned to the same benchmarks.
Consequently, PSAE reports are very valuable. They can be used to assess individual, school and state progress toward the standards. It can help schools modify curriculum and adjust programs. The test lends itself as a litmus test to student learning.
Since the PSAE shows no signs of going away, schools need to prepare students for it. Educators need to build programs and learning activities to meet the challenges of the PSAE. The below strategies can be used to address the PSAE within every school.
- Teachers can start every class with a PSAE-like question.
- Classroom tests can be made to have PSAE questions embedded within them.
- Teachers can explain test-taking strategies to students.
- Since one of the tests within the PSAE is timed as 60 minutes per 60 problems, math teachers can create quizzes with the same ratio: 10 problems/10 min, 15 problems/15 min, ...
- Teachers can start with a WorkKeys type of problem and then use it to approach an ACT type of problem. Moving from concrete problems to abstract problems by changing problem parameters or modifying the original problem can invite students to participate in higher order thinking. This helps students with the overall PSAE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
