After reading the article about "green" changes being made to several pilot schools in Washington state aimed at not only making schools more environmentally friendly, costing 30-50% less to operate, reducing absenteeism by 10% (because students would be healthier, ha ha), and improving test scores; all I could think about was John Gatto's book "Weapons of Mass Instruction". I really wanted to ask myself "when will all of this end?". As a soon-to-be science teacher, I am a huge advocate for doing anything that truly works on the "green" principle. It is of extreme importance that we try to do things in order to protect our environment. After reading the results of the article, I have come to the conclusion that some special interest group, (maybe the people doing the construction, maybe a governmental agency, maybe even someone in the educational system) dangled the it's-all-about-the-kids-and-their-test-scores carrot in order to have their project approved. By the summer of 2007, all but one of the pilot schools had been open for at least one year and data were available to compare their performance with conventional schools recently built in the same districts (Myers, 2008). A summary of the results showed that in no case were the green schools the most energy efficient (never mind supposedly costing 30-50% less), there was no evidence supporting a reduction in absenteeism, and the green schools costs were nearly 6% more to operate than the regular schools. Millions of dollars were spent on a project that actually increased the cost of operations. Apparently somebody didn't read Greg Katz's book "Greening America's Schools: Costs and Benefits" stating that green schools use 33% less energy and 32% less water than conventional school buildings. The concept of converting schools to make them greener is a relatively new one, so advocates of this program need to do a lot more planning and research before billions of dollars are wasted. Maybe we should start with baby steps by teaching students about things they can do themselves to help the environment. A science teacher named Chris Bergmann from Colorado takes his students on a trip to learn about sustainability practices and to take the environmental practices they observe being used in nature and brainstorm how to apply them to their own community. Throughout the year, the students work on improving their own school environment, which has led to the development of a compost system. The class also hopes to gain approval from administrators to build a garden and a greenhouse (Ash, 2011). I believe the student-centered approach is much more practical and cost-effective than wasting money on ineffective buildings-give that money to the students for their garden and greenhouse!
References:
Ash, K. (May 26, 2011). 'Green schools' benefit budgets and students report says. Retrieved from http://www.leef-florida.org/net/content/go.aspx?s=96818.0.0.37432
Gatto, J. (2009). Weapons of mass instruction. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers
Myers, T. (August 23,2008). Green schools don't make the grade. Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba622
Monday, June 27, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Cosmopolitanism or Ethnic Loyalty in Education?
When discussing the issue of multiculturalism in the American school system, the opinions are as diverse as our skin colors. Due to the huge influx of immigrants from all over the world coming to America, our politicians and educators are forced to figure out a way to appropriately deal with the situation in our society and our schools. As with any issue of this capacity, there are extreme views on the subject. Some believe that our country should devise strict regulations concerning immigrants like making illegal immigration a federal offense and building a huge wall in the southern part of our country to keep people out. Other people believe that we should let anyone come to America that wants to start a new life and we can all live together as one big happy family. In the real world, people usually try to come to a happy medium, which is where my opinion comes in.
I have read some very interesting articles composed by people with very different views on how to deal with the subject of multiculturalism in the American school system. Even though their opinions are very different, they both have made quite valid points from their perspectives. The pro-immigrant groups promote equal treatment and equal rights in a country that historically has had a very white-Eurocentric view of social, political, and educational issues. On the other hand, you have anti-immigrant groups that want to impose restrictions, arrest every "illegal", and build a 700 mile wall on our border. Since both sides have children in our schools seeking a fair and appropriate education I pose the question: How do we make this work in our school system?
Finding a system of fairly teaching multiculturalism is a difficult task. We have such a variety of ethnic backgrounds that we cannot reasonably have a "month" dedicated to each and every group because that basically goes against the whole idea of multiculturalism by bringing emphasis on one particular group. Teachers are already having a difficult time trying to develop fair educational curricula to meet the rigorous standards placed on them by the No Child Left Behind act. There are some advocates of multiculturalism that are a bit extreme when it comes to implementing their ideas in a realistic setting. Mr. E.D. Hirsch, a member of the Core Knowledge Foundation has some truly inspirational ideas about how to incorporate multiculturalism in the classroom, but his "Melvillian" cosmopolitan approach was intended to take up at least 50% of the curriculum. I believe that Mr. Adam Waxler, a middle-school social studies teacher has a much more realistic approach to include a variety of cultures in his classroom teachings. For each unit of history he teaches in his class, he divides the students into groups with each group receiving information on a different group involved (ex: African-Americans, Mexicans, Asians, and even children). He then has each group research that perspective and do a presentation for the class (Waxler, 2011). This may not be a perfect way to teach multiculturalism according so some people, but I think it provides a good start by allowing traditional curricula to be taught in a multicultural manner.
My experience with multicultural education was a very positive one throughout. Having been raised on military bases, we were often surrounded with people from many parts of the world. I remember learning about other cultures on a regular basis in my classroom settings as well as having many friends of different nationalities. I don't look back and see that my schools had any type of curricula with a hidden agenda of social control or anything negative from a humanitarian perspective (if they did, I was not aware). Maybe I was very lucky to have had an educational experience free of the skewed standardizations and social prejudices that occur in many schools today. My goal as an educator is to do the best job I can teaching my subject matter, as well as demonstrating tolerance and respect for all of my students regardless of their backgrounds and ethnic origins.
References:
Hirsch, E.D. (1992). Toward a centrist curriculum: two kinds of multiculturalism in elementary school. Course Article retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms
Kiriakou, N. (2006). Organizers see 'new civil rights movement' in immigration protests. Common Dreams.org. Course Article retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms
Waxler, A. (2011). Multiculturalism in school curriculum. ESL Teacher Board Website. Course Article retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms
I have read some very interesting articles composed by people with very different views on how to deal with the subject of multiculturalism in the American school system. Even though their opinions are very different, they both have made quite valid points from their perspectives. The pro-immigrant groups promote equal treatment and equal rights in a country that historically has had a very white-Eurocentric view of social, political, and educational issues. On the other hand, you have anti-immigrant groups that want to impose restrictions, arrest every "illegal", and build a 700 mile wall on our border. Since both sides have children in our schools seeking a fair and appropriate education I pose the question: How do we make this work in our school system?
Finding a system of fairly teaching multiculturalism is a difficult task. We have such a variety of ethnic backgrounds that we cannot reasonably have a "month" dedicated to each and every group because that basically goes against the whole idea of multiculturalism by bringing emphasis on one particular group. Teachers are already having a difficult time trying to develop fair educational curricula to meet the rigorous standards placed on them by the No Child Left Behind act. There are some advocates of multiculturalism that are a bit extreme when it comes to implementing their ideas in a realistic setting. Mr. E.D. Hirsch, a member of the Core Knowledge Foundation has some truly inspirational ideas about how to incorporate multiculturalism in the classroom, but his "Melvillian" cosmopolitan approach was intended to take up at least 50% of the curriculum. I believe that Mr. Adam Waxler, a middle-school social studies teacher has a much more realistic approach to include a variety of cultures in his classroom teachings. For each unit of history he teaches in his class, he divides the students into groups with each group receiving information on a different group involved (ex: African-Americans, Mexicans, Asians, and even children). He then has each group research that perspective and do a presentation for the class (Waxler, 2011). This may not be a perfect way to teach multiculturalism according so some people, but I think it provides a good start by allowing traditional curricula to be taught in a multicultural manner.
My experience with multicultural education was a very positive one throughout. Having been raised on military bases, we were often surrounded with people from many parts of the world. I remember learning about other cultures on a regular basis in my classroom settings as well as having many friends of different nationalities. I don't look back and see that my schools had any type of curricula with a hidden agenda of social control or anything negative from a humanitarian perspective (if they did, I was not aware). Maybe I was very lucky to have had an educational experience free of the skewed standardizations and social prejudices that occur in many schools today. My goal as an educator is to do the best job I can teaching my subject matter, as well as demonstrating tolerance and respect for all of my students regardless of their backgrounds and ethnic origins.
References:
Hirsch, E.D. (1992). Toward a centrist curriculum: two kinds of multiculturalism in elementary school. Course Article retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms
Kiriakou, N. (2006). Organizers see 'new civil rights movement' in immigration protests. Common Dreams.org. Course Article retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms
Waxler, A. (2011). Multiculturalism in school curriculum. ESL Teacher Board Website. Course Article retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Multiculturalism-Right or Wrong?
When discussing multiculturalism vs. nationalism with 1,000 different people, the chances are good that you will get 1,000 different answers. After reading the articles "The Challenge of Multiculturalism...", "Pithissippi Burning..", and "Why Multiculturalism is Wrong", I have realized that there is definitely no clear answer as to which choice is best. There are many people who support the idea that America is a huge melting pot of nationalities, and our history should equally include all of the races involved in the development of our nation. They believe that the current history books are very Euro-American based (centering primarily on white history) and tend to leave out vital information about other races such as Native Americans, Chinese, Mexicans, and African Americans. In our nation's current state of "political correctness", more positive attention has been drawn to differing cultures than in the past. We now have a black history month, which brings awareness to their many innovators and achievements. Our society has made many positive adjustments to provide for the rapidly growing Hispanic population; a large amount of publicly displayed information is written in English and Spanish, schools provide ESL programs to help students adjust, adaptations have been made to make it easier to obtain driver's licenses, insurance, health care, and many other things.
On the opposite pole from multiculturalists, you have the nationalists who generally believe that citizenship should be limited to one ethnic and cultural identity. They tend to believe that the acceptance and mixing of other cultures dilutes the strength of the nation and ruins our democratic state of being. Generally, many nationalists are often referred to as "racists". Nationalists come in all shapes and colors; do the groups KKK and Black Panthers sound familiar? Not all nationalists are racist, some countries just have a great sense of keeping with their traditions and history and feel that an influx of immigrants from other countries would destroy what was already established. Their basic attitude is "conform or leave", and tend to prefer a unified culture as opposed to diversity.
The articles presented brought up some very thought-provoking ideas to me about multiculturalism and nationalism. The comment was made that history is a perspective, and everyone's perspective is different. Whites and Blacks definitely have different views on slavery, and Chinese immigrants probably had a much different view of history than Whites people as well. Let's not forget Native Americans, I'm quite sure they had a much different perspective of the Pilgrims than the one portrayed in my old history books. Despite having a tendency to lean towards a multicultural viewpoint, there are some positive ideals set forth by nationalism. People have a tendency to want to belong and feel like they are part of something, perhaps giving them a sense of self-worth and security. Taking pride in being part of a "nation" provides that feeling for many people. "Ideal" multiculturalism is something that I see as a positive quality because I have been fortunate enough to spend much of my life around people from many different cultures which has allowed me to be tolerant and respectful towards them. Even multiculturalists can get carried away with there desire to re-write history from their prospective.
Since America is quite young as far as national history goes, my hope is that in the future we can take pride in being a tolerant, multicultural society that uses that ideal to instill a national pride in all citizens of our country. We as educators can start this "ball rolling" by teaching our students to be proud of their heritage as well as respectful and understanding of others. This ideal could become our "new nationalism"!
References:
Sociological Research Online (1997). Why multiculturalism is wrong. Structures of Nationalism.
Taylor, S. The challenge of 'multiculturalism' in how Americans view the past and the future. The Journal for Historical Review. 12: pp.159-165.
Tobia, P. (2009, February 23). Pithissippi burning: race, white nationalism, and American culture. Nashville Scene website. Retrieved from http://www.nashvillescene.com/Articlearchives
On the opposite pole from multiculturalists, you have the nationalists who generally believe that citizenship should be limited to one ethnic and cultural identity. They tend to believe that the acceptance and mixing of other cultures dilutes the strength of the nation and ruins our democratic state of being. Generally, many nationalists are often referred to as "racists". Nationalists come in all shapes and colors; do the groups KKK and Black Panthers sound familiar? Not all nationalists are racist, some countries just have a great sense of keeping with their traditions and history and feel that an influx of immigrants from other countries would destroy what was already established. Their basic attitude is "conform or leave", and tend to prefer a unified culture as opposed to diversity.
The articles presented brought up some very thought-provoking ideas to me about multiculturalism and nationalism. The comment was made that history is a perspective, and everyone's perspective is different. Whites and Blacks definitely have different views on slavery, and Chinese immigrants probably had a much different view of history than Whites people as well. Let's not forget Native Americans, I'm quite sure they had a much different perspective of the Pilgrims than the one portrayed in my old history books. Despite having a tendency to lean towards a multicultural viewpoint, there are some positive ideals set forth by nationalism. People have a tendency to want to belong and feel like they are part of something, perhaps giving them a sense of self-worth and security. Taking pride in being part of a "nation" provides that feeling for many people. "Ideal" multiculturalism is something that I see as a positive quality because I have been fortunate enough to spend much of my life around people from many different cultures which has allowed me to be tolerant and respectful towards them. Even multiculturalists can get carried away with there desire to re-write history from their prospective.
Since America is quite young as far as national history goes, my hope is that in the future we can take pride in being a tolerant, multicultural society that uses that ideal to instill a national pride in all citizens of our country. We as educators can start this "ball rolling" by teaching our students to be proud of their heritage as well as respectful and understanding of others. This ideal could become our "new nationalism"!
References:
Sociological Research Online (1997). Why multiculturalism is wrong. Structures of Nationalism.
Taylor, S. The challenge of 'multiculturalism' in how Americans view the past and the future. The Journal for Historical Review. 12: pp.159-165.
Tobia, P. (2009, February 23). Pithissippi burning: race, white nationalism, and American culture. Nashville Scene website. Retrieved from http://www.nashvillescene.com/Articlearchives
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Religion in Schools
The subject of religion in public schools is probably one of the most highly contested situations in the educational system. The United States has repeatedly faced issues concerning separation of church and state because of constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religion. Because religion is a deeply rooted part of our society, it is very easy for beliefs to carry over into schools and other places where people have a great deal of interaction. It is very interesting how lawmakers and other members of society have handled the issue of religion in schools over time. In 1935, a lawsuit was filed by the Watch Tower Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses on behalf of two children who were required, against their religious beliefs, to salute and pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag (Jehovah's Witnesses believed this was a form of idolatry). The children had refused to participate in the daily flag and pledge activity, and were both expelled from school by the directors of their school district, despite having written letters to the school board explaining their reasons (Haynes, Wigdor, nd) . At this time, the court found in favor of the children's right not to participate. Interestingly enough, in 1940 (close to WWII), the US Supreme Court reversed their decision and ruled that the government had the authority to "compel respect for the flag as a key symbol of national unity"(Haynes, Wigdor). In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its decision again during another case involving Jehovah's Witnesses basically saying that the government does not have the authority to force people to salute the flag or say the pledge because of their right to freedom of speech.
On a different note, there was a case in Illinois involving a federal judge ruling against a state law requiring public school students to observe a moment of silence at the beginning of each day (this was meant for prayer or personal reflection). The lawsuit was filed by an atheist father of a high school student who believed that the moment of silence was an "unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state" (Calefati, 2009). Those in favor of the moment of silence believed that it created an avenue for personal choice whether to pray or not. Those opposed to this decision felt that it was a way for religion to be incorporated into public schools.
Another topic of debate concerning religion in schools is the issue of creationism vs. evolution. There is a never-ending argument over how much of each type of theory should be taught in the classroom. This is a very difficult issue to resolve because they are both based on theoretical information. Creation is a biblical notion that God created the earth, while evolution theoretically explains existence of life from a scientific perspective. The manner in which these subjects are taught in public schools will probably be challenged for a very long time to come.
Based on the previous information, I think that lawmakers will constantly be faced with the challenge of how to find a balance between religion and free speech when it involves public education. When you live in such a diverse country as the United States which prides itself on our various freedoms, you have to accept that there will always be difficulty finding a happy medium when it comes to the issue of religion in schools. I strongly disagree with the School District's decision in 1935 to expel two young children for following the beliefs they were taught by their parents. The children were simply going by what they felt was right and they weren't doing anything that hurt other students by not participating in the pledge activity. Granted, this was a religious based action and I understand that the school felt obligated to carry out rules, I just feel that the situation could have been handled much better without expelling the children. In the case of the atheist and his high school daughter, I think the court should have never even allowed it to proceed, and thrown it out as a frivolous law suit. I'm not really sure why a moment of silence is even needed as part of the daily routine schools, but unless Mr. Atheist could prove that the school was forcing his daughter to pray to God during this time, I don't see his point in the least. My opinion about the moment of silence is that it is the court's way of trying to make everyone happy in a relatively neutral way.
It is concerning to me as a future science teacher that I will be faced with teaching evolution and/ or creationism. I know that I will have to be very careful in how I approach this subject in my classroom, and hope that I will be equipped with a strong set of guidelines. My goal is to approach this with an open mind, and to be sure that I teach in a manner that obeys the educational and legal process.
On a different note, there was a case in Illinois involving a federal judge ruling against a state law requiring public school students to observe a moment of silence at the beginning of each day (this was meant for prayer or personal reflection). The lawsuit was filed by an atheist father of a high school student who believed that the moment of silence was an "unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state" (Calefati, 2009). Those in favor of the moment of silence believed that it created an avenue for personal choice whether to pray or not. Those opposed to this decision felt that it was a way for religion to be incorporated into public schools.
Another topic of debate concerning religion in schools is the issue of creationism vs. evolution. There is a never-ending argument over how much of each type of theory should be taught in the classroom. This is a very difficult issue to resolve because they are both based on theoretical information. Creation is a biblical notion that God created the earth, while evolution theoretically explains existence of life from a scientific perspective. The manner in which these subjects are taught in public schools will probably be challenged for a very long time to come.
Based on the previous information, I think that lawmakers will constantly be faced with the challenge of how to find a balance between religion and free speech when it involves public education. When you live in such a diverse country as the United States which prides itself on our various freedoms, you have to accept that there will always be difficulty finding a happy medium when it comes to the issue of religion in schools. I strongly disagree with the School District's decision in 1935 to expel two young children for following the beliefs they were taught by their parents. The children were simply going by what they felt was right and they weren't doing anything that hurt other students by not participating in the pledge activity. Granted, this was a religious based action and I understand that the school felt obligated to carry out rules, I just feel that the situation could have been handled much better without expelling the children. In the case of the atheist and his high school daughter, I think the court should have never even allowed it to proceed, and thrown it out as a frivolous law suit. I'm not really sure why a moment of silence is even needed as part of the daily routine schools, but unless Mr. Atheist could prove that the school was forcing his daughter to pray to God during this time, I don't see his point in the least. My opinion about the moment of silence is that it is the court's way of trying to make everyone happy in a relatively neutral way.
It is concerning to me as a future science teacher that I will be faced with teaching evolution and/ or creationism. I know that I will have to be very careful in how I approach this subject in my classroom, and hope that I will be equipped with a strong set of guidelines. My goal is to approach this with an open mind, and to be sure that I teach in a manner that obeys the educational and legal process.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Education Innovators and Real "Makers" of Public School
When learning about people who have influenced public education in the United States over the past 100-plus years, it is pretty clear that there is a big difference between the "innovators" and the "makers". The innovators throughout history worked very hard to overcome various obstacles in order to make improvements that would benefit the educational system and improve the learning environment for all students. Innovation can be defined as the "introduction of a new idea that makes a change in anything established". The education innovators of the past and present have recognized areas that needed improvement and took action to implement new ideas in order to produce a positive change.
One person who I see as a great innovator in education is Deborah Meier. She spent many years working to reform a school system in Harlem that continued to produce the lowest test scores in the district. She founded several alternative schools based on a democratic community system where the teachers had a great deal of autonomy and the parents had a voice in what went on with their children. Her philosophy created such a successful learning environment, that the students attained a 90% graduation rate with that same amount attending college (PBS 2011).
On the other end of the educational system spectrum you have the "makers", who basically used their wealth and power to mold the educational system into a socialistic machine designed to suit the needs of the elite few. These were men such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and J.P. Morgan. John Gatto mentions in his writings that a highly successful efficiency expert by the name of Frederick W. Taylor basically set the ball rolling for the American education system to become a servant to corporate and political management. This type of system was controlled by large corporations, great universities, and government bureaus, and viewed students as a human resources- rather than as unique individuals.
As a future educator, I would love to be a "Deborah Meier". I want my classroom environment to be one of learning and improving on an individual level, and to strongly encourage parents to be involved in their children's education. As a parent myself, I feel that being involved with your children makes a huge difference. I do not want to be involved in a "Frederick Taylor" system that is all about efficiency and molding students to be cogs in the wheel of big business. I am a strong advocate of individualism and I most definitely want to become an innovator as opposed to a maker!
References:
PBS, 2001. Innovators. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/
One person who I see as a great innovator in education is Deborah Meier. She spent many years working to reform a school system in Harlem that continued to produce the lowest test scores in the district. She founded several alternative schools based on a democratic community system where the teachers had a great deal of autonomy and the parents had a voice in what went on with their children. Her philosophy created such a successful learning environment, that the students attained a 90% graduation rate with that same amount attending college (PBS 2011).
On the other end of the educational system spectrum you have the "makers", who basically used their wealth and power to mold the educational system into a socialistic machine designed to suit the needs of the elite few. These were men such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and J.P. Morgan. John Gatto mentions in his writings that a highly successful efficiency expert by the name of Frederick W. Taylor basically set the ball rolling for the American education system to become a servant to corporate and political management. This type of system was controlled by large corporations, great universities, and government bureaus, and viewed students as a human resources- rather than as unique individuals.
As a future educator, I would love to be a "Deborah Meier". I want my classroom environment to be one of learning and improving on an individual level, and to strongly encourage parents to be involved in their children's education. As a parent myself, I feel that being involved with your children makes a huge difference. I do not want to be involved in a "Frederick Taylor" system that is all about efficiency and molding students to be cogs in the wheel of big business. I am a strong advocate of individualism and I most definitely want to become an innovator as opposed to a maker!
References:
PBS, 2001. Innovators. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)