*1.A story that mimics the school where all the teachers were fired, but the students still pressure the fired teachers to teach them after school.
2.The of a teacher that teaches everything in the curriculum into applied learning so the students see the importance of what they are learning.
3.A new math teacher is given his curriculum but instead teaches only what he believes is necessary for real life.
4. An English teacher decides only to teach banned books.
*5.One student is taken out of a really bad school by his father and home schooled, and some of the other students leave school and are taught by the father.
6.The students learn more when they are taught by other students than with teachers because they can relate.
7.The film can be shot from the view of the teacher
8.the students are very calm and the teacher is very loud and energized.
Monday, March 22, 2010
homework 46
The Catcher in the Rye is the story of Holden Caulfield and his attempt to weed out the "phonies" and find someone who sees the world like he does. Holden rejects the prep school life style. According to him everyone has become an indoctrinated follower an walks blindly. I think Salinger main argument in the book is that it is not necessary to do what the system wants from you. Salinger uses Holden to say that school and the rest of life is filled with a lot of unnecessary events and things and people over complicate life. Holden wants to regain the innocence of childhood because it isn't full of unnecessary facts items.
The way Holden views prep school and his colleagues is a perfect example of student perception of school. His anger with nearly everyone who is associated with Pencey shows his overall feeling that school is phonies." Holden's perception of what school does and what everyone around Holden are completely different. According to Holden school serves as the proverbial gateway that obstructs the innocence of childhood and turns it into a do nothing society.
The Catcher In The Rye demonstrates that the institution of school can be misleading, it can sell you one thing but give you another. It is not just teenage angst because Holden associates himself with his former teacher who even tries to tell him the positives of school. To Holden the institution of school is a lie, and all the people who come out of it whether it be his brother or his roommate are also lies.
The constant phonies that Holden identify are those who he sees as frivolous and shallow, they are those who have been sold the lie and believed it so much that they try to sell it to others. The phonies are a way for Holden to classify what is wrong with school and with society. All of the narration and identifying of what is wrong and what is good help distinguish what Holden thinks about school.
The way Holden views prep school and his colleagues is a perfect example of student perception of school. His anger with nearly everyone who is associated with Pencey shows his overall feeling that school is phonies." Holden's perception of what school does and what everyone around Holden are completely different. According to Holden school serves as the proverbial gateway that obstructs the innocence of childhood and turns it into a do nothing society.
The Catcher In The Rye demonstrates that the institution of school can be misleading, it can sell you one thing but give you another. It is not just teenage angst because Holden associates himself with his former teacher who even tries to tell him the positives of school. To Holden the institution of school is a lie, and all the people who come out of it whether it be his brother or his roommate are also lies.
The constant phonies that Holden identify are those who he sees as frivolous and shallow, they are those who have been sold the lie and believed it so much that they try to sell it to others. The phonies are a way for Holden to classify what is wrong with school and with society. All of the narration and identifying of what is wrong and what is good help distinguish what Holden thinks about school.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Hirsch:
E.D. Hirsch believes we need more of a national curriculum and more conservative, implicit style learning (what I mean by this is it focuses heavily on facts.) A lot of his ideology relates to the idea that we should train students to be what he calls culturally literate, meaning that students should learn terms, dates, people and formulas in all subjects that are referenced often in pop culture or newspapers. By Hirsch's logic a national curriculum followed across the board will lessen the emphasis on school choice, something Democrats and Republicans often talk about. If every school taught at the same level there wouldn't parents who are constantly trying to find the "best school" for their children. It also leaves nothing for the students to fall back on, resulting in higher student accountability, higher national standards and hopefully better schools. Hirsch defends his argument that common curriculum makes for better schools by pointing to other countries with a common curriculum like France where even immigrants score high on tests.
Sizer:
Sizer's idea of the right education system follows a more in depth approach to learning. He wants an education system where there is less emphasis on absorbing facts and information and more on true comprehension. Sizer hopes that students will have a deeper understanding of the topics. Sizer wants to see students who have a more personal and intricate understanding of topics, where they use their minds individually to try to become more insightful. Hirsch follows a how will students be able to think and interact socially and intellectually whereas Sizer follows a how will students gain more transferable skills to help them become intellectuals. A lot of Sizer's idea stems from individualism, according to him individualism for the students is incredibly important for learning and that cannot happen in wide spread standardized education system.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
The two theories do contradict each other but not by that much. Hirsch wants basic knowledge with an anyone can teach it mentality and a preset curriculum and Sizer wants to see students with a more personal profound understanding of books, or events. Hirsch seems more emotionless with no student to topic connection. but that doesn't mean it is completely wrong. The opposition of Hirsch's argument says that it teaches not necessary things about people that don't affect their lives. But the cultural literacy argument may affect the student more than anything else. In Sizer's speech he said "students use their minds. Schools are to provoke young people to grow up intellectually, to think hard and resourcefully and imaginatively about important things." It is important for students to learn how to learn and to use these skills to obtain a superior understanding of any topic. So with cultural literacy necessary to be social intellectuals in the current world and deep understanding being important for connection to the world the best education system has to be a mix of both.
2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?
If there is one thing SOF has done for me it has helped me to think more in depth about abstract topics. I see how the emphasis on habits of mind and looking at all angles has helped my understanding, and exhibitions have helped me become a better writer. With that in mind i find more of a connection the sizer schools. However the sizer method has failed me in a lot of ways, i agree with Hirsch that we have to be culturally literate in order to be successful functioning intellectuals and there are a lot of ways where the lack of A.P. courses or regular courses that teach these aspects have hurt me significantly. This quote from the NYT article Doing Our Homework defends the need for cultural literacy. "When Mr. Hirsch talks about ''cultural literacy,'' what he's talking about is the full set of information, both fragmentary and complete, that a person possesses about not only culture but economics, history, science and math. Without such ''intellectual capital,'' just reading a newspaper, with its references like ''supply and demand,'' ''Machiavellian tactics,'' ''black holes'' or ''The Picture of Dorian Gray,'' can be overwhelming." If school preps for you life shouldn't we learn more about terms used in life.
As I said before I think the one right education system has a mix of both Hirsch's and Sizer's ideas. a school where the students learn the terms of culture but at the same time are taught to gain a more personal message. When it comes to the idea that some classes like chemistry are not as necessary to cultural literacy as U.S. History there is a gray area. I agree that a great amount of science and math isn't used everyday but innovation and invention fuels a nations prosperity and it for that reason that chemistry although it may seem irrelevant is imperative.
E.D. Hirsch believes we need more of a national curriculum and more conservative, implicit style learning (what I mean by this is it focuses heavily on facts.) A lot of his ideology relates to the idea that we should train students to be what he calls culturally literate, meaning that students should learn terms, dates, people and formulas in all subjects that are referenced often in pop culture or newspapers. By Hirsch's logic a national curriculum followed across the board will lessen the emphasis on school choice, something Democrats and Republicans often talk about. If every school taught at the same level there wouldn't parents who are constantly trying to find the "best school" for their children. It also leaves nothing for the students to fall back on, resulting in higher student accountability, higher national standards and hopefully better schools. Hirsch defends his argument that common curriculum makes for better schools by pointing to other countries with a common curriculum like France where even immigrants score high on tests.
Sizer:
Sizer's idea of the right education system follows a more in depth approach to learning. He wants an education system where there is less emphasis on absorbing facts and information and more on true comprehension. Sizer hopes that students will have a deeper understanding of the topics. Sizer wants to see students who have a more personal and intricate understanding of topics, where they use their minds individually to try to become more insightful. Hirsch follows a how will students be able to think and interact socially and intellectually whereas Sizer follows a how will students gain more transferable skills to help them become intellectuals. A lot of Sizer's idea stems from individualism, according to him individualism for the students is incredibly important for learning and that cannot happen in wide spread standardized education system.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
The two theories do contradict each other but not by that much. Hirsch wants basic knowledge with an anyone can teach it mentality and a preset curriculum and Sizer wants to see students with a more personal profound understanding of books, or events. Hirsch seems more emotionless with no student to topic connection. but that doesn't mean it is completely wrong. The opposition of Hirsch's argument says that it teaches not necessary things about people that don't affect their lives. But the cultural literacy argument may affect the student more than anything else. In Sizer's speech he said "students use their minds. Schools are to provoke young people to grow up intellectually, to think hard and resourcefully and imaginatively about important things." It is important for students to learn how to learn and to use these skills to obtain a superior understanding of any topic. So with cultural literacy necessary to be social intellectuals in the current world and deep understanding being important for connection to the world the best education system has to be a mix of both.
2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?
If there is one thing SOF has done for me it has helped me to think more in depth about abstract topics. I see how the emphasis on habits of mind and looking at all angles has helped my understanding, and exhibitions have helped me become a better writer. With that in mind i find more of a connection the sizer schools. However the sizer method has failed me in a lot of ways, i agree with Hirsch that we have to be culturally literate in order to be successful functioning intellectuals and there are a lot of ways where the lack of A.P. courses or regular courses that teach these aspects have hurt me significantly. This quote from the NYT article Doing Our Homework defends the need for cultural literacy. "When Mr. Hirsch talks about ''cultural literacy,'' what he's talking about is the full set of information, both fragmentary and complete, that a person possesses about not only culture but economics, history, science and math. Without such ''intellectual capital,'' just reading a newspaper, with its references like ''supply and demand,'' ''Machiavellian tactics,'' ''black holes'' or ''The Picture of Dorian Gray,'' can be overwhelming." If school preps for you life shouldn't we learn more about terms used in life.
As I said before I think the one right education system has a mix of both Hirsch's and Sizer's ideas. a school where the students learn the terms of culture but at the same time are taught to gain a more personal message. When it comes to the idea that some classes like chemistry are not as necessary to cultural literacy as U.S. History there is a gray area. I agree that a great amount of science and math isn't used everyday but innovation and invention fuels a nations prosperity and it for that reason that chemistry although it may seem irrelevant is imperative.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
homework 44
USATODAY article on two types of school:
This article brought up some very interesting ideas. In theory the school system where everyone is split into entrepreneurs and workers should work but I don't know if it end up a success . I would not be surprised if those who were put into the worker category revolted because they felt like it infringed on their ability to switch classes or "live the American dream" The author is basically accepting the idea that some people are employees and others are executives and that is normal but he is also rejecting the idea that you can change status. Saying that no employee can ever change their title this is wrong, it is possible for a mid-level worker at McDonald's to be promoted to corporate and know they can move up. The point where he says that everything in education will be done for sustainable growth and the development and safety of your country seems a little unrealistic. Yes this system works for the military but there is more incentive in the army to act solely for the sustainability of your nation. The idea that your actions greatly impact everyone around you is much more prevalent in the military then it is in business school.
Bar Ought To Be Higher NY Times article by Bob Herbert
I agree I think so much starts with the teachers, they can help the student as an individual. A standard across the board style curriculum tries to shoe horn students, fitting them all into one system but not all students have the same strengths and weaknesses. so if you have an individual oriented class where teachers have more control students should learn more.
It brings about the idea that there should be more applied learning. students should not be taught something because it is going to be on a test, they should be taught it and understand why its important and how they can better grasp the topic. A lot of Kenny's system is based around understand yourself and what you should do to help your community, i think this is key to becoming educated. This is another unexamined or unused role of school, if students are treated as individuals and are shown by their teachers how they can use what they learn and what they can do for the world school will become more meaningful.
Obama's speech:
I also read the Obama Speech transcript and there are some ideas that i do agree with along with others i am not in as much agreement. For one i agree that a good education is heavily reliant on the students themselves. Although students are given baby steps when they were in the younger grades, they cannot expect teachers to show as much compassion as they get older. Although I do think that a lot of what makes a good education system stems from the teachers care and how they help the individual student, student responsibility is just as important. Students should understand they need to prioritize their responsibilities. Which goes further into the idea of having a education system more focused on student accountability. The school provides teachers, classrooms, books, and computers for the students. If he (the student) still decides to watch T.V. instead of doing homework, he and his parents are at fault. Obama said "But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying." Every child in America has the right to an education an it is their responsibility to utilize it.
However the idea that going to school will allow you to accomplish amazing things like curing AIDS, or innovating new green technology seems a little far fetched and sounds like political fluff. Yes someone will do that but that really should not be the aspiration of every kid in a science class. It gives the impression that we all know that school teaches useless things but try to block that realization because it feels good to think what we're learning is going to help us all change the world. We won't all be like that but some will.
If school is supposed to be the place where the future leaders and innovators are born who will eventually change the world and help society then the curriculum matches. All the science and math and English we learn may only be used consistently by a handful of kids but those kids are supposedly the ones who are going to make the big leaps of progression.
This article brought up some very interesting ideas. In theory the school system where everyone is split into entrepreneurs and workers should work but I don't know if it end up a success . I would not be surprised if those who were put into the worker category revolted because they felt like it infringed on their ability to switch classes or "live the American dream" The author is basically accepting the idea that some people are employees and others are executives and that is normal but he is also rejecting the idea that you can change status. Saying that no employee can ever change their title this is wrong, it is possible for a mid-level worker at McDonald's to be promoted to corporate and know they can move up. The point where he says that everything in education will be done for sustainable growth and the development and safety of your country seems a little unrealistic. Yes this system works for the military but there is more incentive in the army to act solely for the sustainability of your nation. The idea that your actions greatly impact everyone around you is much more prevalent in the military then it is in business school.
Bar Ought To Be Higher NY Times article by Bob Herbert
I agree I think so much starts with the teachers, they can help the student as an individual. A standard across the board style curriculum tries to shoe horn students, fitting them all into one system but not all students have the same strengths and weaknesses. so if you have an individual oriented class where teachers have more control students should learn more.
It brings about the idea that there should be more applied learning. students should not be taught something because it is going to be on a test, they should be taught it and understand why its important and how they can better grasp the topic. A lot of Kenny's system is based around understand yourself and what you should do to help your community, i think this is key to becoming educated. This is another unexamined or unused role of school, if students are treated as individuals and are shown by their teachers how they can use what they learn and what they can do for the world school will become more meaningful.
Obama's speech:
I also read the Obama Speech transcript and there are some ideas that i do agree with along with others i am not in as much agreement. For one i agree that a good education is heavily reliant on the students themselves. Although students are given baby steps when they were in the younger grades, they cannot expect teachers to show as much compassion as they get older. Although I do think that a lot of what makes a good education system stems from the teachers care and how they help the individual student, student responsibility is just as important. Students should understand they need to prioritize their responsibilities. Which goes further into the idea of having a education system more focused on student accountability. The school provides teachers, classrooms, books, and computers for the students. If he (the student) still decides to watch T.V. instead of doing homework, he and his parents are at fault. Obama said "But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying." Every child in America has the right to an education an it is their responsibility to utilize it.
However the idea that going to school will allow you to accomplish amazing things like curing AIDS, or innovating new green technology seems a little far fetched and sounds like political fluff. Yes someone will do that but that really should not be the aspiration of every kid in a science class. It gives the impression that we all know that school teaches useless things but try to block that realization because it feels good to think what we're learning is going to help us all change the world. We won't all be like that but some will.
If school is supposed to be the place where the future leaders and innovators are born who will eventually change the world and help society then the curriculum matches. All the science and math and English we learn may only be used consistently by a handful of kids but those kids are supposedly the ones who are going to make the big leaps of progression.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
homework 42 part B
question: why is the modern school system treated like a giant race to get the best rank on every level from student to nation? Where does the ranking stem from, is it fair to the students or teachers? Is it linked to our seemingly obsessive need to be validated?
significance:
This is so important because school plays such a pivotal role in the rest of out lives, what are we asked when we apply for a job? where did you go to school. And what is asked of us when we meet some one new, what is your name and occupation? So in order to be successful economically or socially we rely on our brand-name education. This in some ways plays into the need for ranking and sorting. If our careers and friends depend on our education is it really such a surprise that everyone is trying to reach the common goal of success. I think ranking is societies solution to sorting out who is better. Your rank in middle-school determines where you go to high-school, your rank in high-school determines where you go to college, your rank in college determines where you work and your salary, your job determines when you retire and so on.
It seems like sorting and ranking affects nearly everyone it touches, it can make or destroy hopes and it can have a deep effect on your outlook on school, or life. Some students obsessively think about their rank in school, to them it is their future and in their eyes it is the gate way to accomplishing their life goal. To these students the rank and sort system is one of the most important parts of school.
Functionally sorting and ranking provides a system of conditioning the students/citizens. through ranking some students are weeded out and those that remain are given good jobs. Ranking allows us to sort and by sorting we are able to have a functioning class system. Some work for the industry and others run it, helping to fuel international capitalism. In short the sort system is in some ways unfair but at the same time allows a nation to compete on the global stage and improve its economy and the well being of its citizens.
significance:
This is so important because school plays such a pivotal role in the rest of out lives, what are we asked when we apply for a job? where did you go to school. And what is asked of us when we meet some one new, what is your name and occupation? So in order to be successful economically or socially we rely on our brand-name education. This in some ways plays into the need for ranking and sorting. If our careers and friends depend on our education is it really such a surprise that everyone is trying to reach the common goal of success. I think ranking is societies solution to sorting out who is better. Your rank in middle-school determines where you go to high-school, your rank in high-school determines where you go to college, your rank in college determines where you work and your salary, your job determines when you retire and so on.
It seems like sorting and ranking affects nearly everyone it touches, it can make or destroy hopes and it can have a deep effect on your outlook on school, or life. Some students obsessively think about their rank in school, to them it is their future and in their eyes it is the gate way to accomplishing their life goal. To these students the rank and sort system is one of the most important parts of school.
Functionally sorting and ranking provides a system of conditioning the students/citizens. through ranking some students are weeded out and those that remain are given good jobs. Ranking allows us to sort and by sorting we are able to have a functioning class system. Some work for the industry and others run it, helping to fuel international capitalism. In short the sort system is in some ways unfair but at the same time allows a nation to compete on the global stage and improve its economy and the well being of its citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)