HW # 45 More Big Thoughts on Schools

When I first read Sol Stern's article called "E.D. Hirsch's Curriculum for Democracy," I felt somewhat annoyed by his criticism of proggresive education which seems to focus more on teaching kids how to think as opposed to what he reccomends: learning a whole bunch of facts. The quote that really got to me was, "By now, it should be evident that teaching children in the early grades "how to learn about the Civil War" will not necessarily lead them ever to learn about the Civil War-or about any of the other pivotal events in their country's history." He is also upset that every kid doesn't know who James Monroe is in the first grade. It makes absolutely no sense to me that first graders should be fed a lot of facts about the Civil War. And it seems crazy to say that not learning a series of facts in first or second grade will mean that kids won't be able to absorb facts when they're older. Actually, I think the opposite is true. If kids are thought how to think about important events when they are little, like for instance how different it was growing up in the north as opposed to growing up in the south, then when they are older they will have a context to put the facts they are learning in.

Another thing that was annoying to me about Hirsch's thinking, according to Sol Stern, is the way he thinks about the connection between education and democracy. Hirsch, he says, thinks kids should learn the same facts based curriculum in every grade so that they would all think similarly. " The school would be the institution that would transform future citizens into loyal Americans...It would teach common knowlege, virtues, ideals, language, and commitments." This kind of teaching doesn't sound good for democracy at all. It sounds more like what a totalitarian government would do. Ted Sizer, the progressive education guy, says, "Students should leave school well-informed skeptics, able to ask good questions as a matter of habit." In other words, kids should develop their well-informed opinions and not just be taught one way to think. Sizer also said, "If democracy is about responsible freedom, it depends on a citizenry which sees the world clearly, which is repectful of past ideas, but never their prisoner..." This way of thinking is obviously a much better way to think about how to develop citizens who can participate in a democracy that will work. Hirsch's idea that he and the Founding Fathers had more in common than the Founding Fathers and Sizer would've had also sounds pretty crazy to me. I don't think the Founding Fathers were thinking about a lot of diversity in the voting pool. They weren't thinking about how young black kids, Native Americans, Asian-Americans, and Jewish kids whose grandparents had been killed in the Holacaust could all feel a part of being American.

As far as coming up with a way that Hirsch's theory of a good education and Sizer's theory could work together, it is important to know that Hirsch focused more on the earlier grades and Sizer focused on high school grades. It seems to me that there should always be an emphasis on teaching kids how to think about specific subjects at all grade levels. Obviously, facts need to be learned as well. Just learning facts is not only boring but it's also not effective because they will be forgotten if they are not in a context. The context would be an argument or a way of thinking that uses the facts the student has learned. I think the problem in the difference in their thinking has to do with testing. Hirsch believes in a lot of standardized testing at younger ages, and wealthier kids have always done better on these tests on the whole. Sizer's approach is fairer for kids from different economic and ethnic backgrounds. All kids need to learn a lot of facts, but they also need to learn how to develop ideas and opinions so that they can develop their minds and contribute to their society and also be smart voters.

HW # 44 Big Expectations for School

President Obama's back to school speech is actually a motivational speech to kids in which he tells them that although the goverment, the teachers, and their parents all have responsibiltity for their achievement in school, kids themselves have the greatest responsiblity for their own education. He tells them that it is up to them to discover their special talents, which they all have, and that they need to do thi not only for themselves but for their country.
He acknowledges the fact that some kids have disadvantages that make it hard for them to do well and talks of specific kids who have fought great odds to succeed. There are two quotes that really stick out for me: "And no matter what you do with your life - I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it," and "If you quit on school - you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country." Both quotes have this "or else" aspect to them with a little fear and guilt built in. I think this is a pretty great speech on the whole especially coming from a young and exciting president especially in comparison to what we had before. Also, Obama had to overcome a lot to suceed so he has a lot of credibility. Kids need to hear a speech like this although it obviously does not let government, schools, and teachers off the hook for their responsabilities to kids.

Even though it's true that some kids overcome incredible odds to succeed, this doesn't mean that other kids with the same problems can overcome their obstacles. Some kids can focus and tune out problems and distractions and others can't. As Obama says we all have different talents. For most kids going to a bad school with teachers that have a hard time staying motivated themselves it just is not going to be possible to do well. In Thomas L. Friedman's article he talks about how the next generation of Americans are going to hold the country back because of their weak science and math education. He is talking to the CEO of Intel, a top U.S corparation, who says he would rather higher young Americans but will higher better educated Chinese people if he has to. I found this other article about an Chinese/American doctor who says "of all the demographic factors we studied in relation to school performance, ethnicity was the most important.... In terms of school achievement, it is more advantageous to be Aisan than to be wealthy, to have non-divorced parents, or to have a mother who is able to stay at home full time." This quote really stuck me. I know for example that Stuyvesant High School is nearly 50% Asian and that Harvard has 17% Asian students, and Asians only make up 4% of the U.S population. Also, Jewish people, who make up 3% of the U.S population, make up 21% of the Ivy League student population. The point I am trying to make is that if there is an emphasis on academic achievement in your culture, that is a big advantage. Black and Hispanic kids whose parents and grand-parents are often not that well educated can be at a disadvantage. Governments and schools have a responsibility to teach all kids, and all cultures contribute a lot to society. In Bob Herbert's article about the amazing educator Deborah Kenny, he talks about how succesfull her Harlem Village Academy schools have been because they develop great teachers. In a way the kids who go to these schools are getting the special culture they need to do well academically.

My reaction to the article by Robert Kiyosaki, who says he wants to create the U.S Buisness Academy for Entrepreneurs, which would be run like a military academy, is that it probably wouldn't work. Don't you need a lot of freedom and independence to become an entrepreneur?
Wouldn't it be better to just have huge grant awards for people with great ideas to start new businesses? I like the reaction of the guy whose comment said, "I'll take wages that both Henry Ford and Bill Gates would drop out of your military school faster than a cockaroach runs from light."


.

HW 42 - Significance

The challenge of how to get a whole classroom of kids to be involved in whatever is being taught is what I want to explore. I started looking up descriptions of National Teachers of the Year because I thought these teachers might have something to say about techniques that work for a whole group. I notice that a lot of these teachers are history teachers and that maybe I should focus on ways history teachers have found projects that make history come alive and get kids excited and want to understand more.

The worst thing in a classroom is to have a lot of bored kids. The bored kids are useless contributers and the non-bored kids can feel self-conscious and overly animated in a room of the living dead. When I think back to my middle school years, classroom memories that stand out are times when we had big group projects like creating a walk-in Egyptian tomb. The great thing about the project was that it used the skills of every kid in the class. The tomb was so amazing that the whole school came to visit it including some outsiders from the community. There wasn't a single kid in that class who wasn't proud of the tomb and the work he or she did on it.


A classroom should act more like a team rather than like a group of individuals fending for themselves. When you're on a team, the pressure not to let your team down is much stronger than the pressure not to let yourself down. A team is always stronger than its individual parts. We learn from interaction with each other just as we learn from our coach or teacher. The ability not to let your partners down is not only a tool that can be used at school, but a tool to be used your entire life. School should be preparation for life in society. Group experience with shared humanity early in life can lead to taking responsibility to contribute to society in positive ways as a grownup. This is how we grow as individuals and create our own essence, as existentialists would say.