Chapters 1-4- Weeks 6-7

      Looking back through the first four chapters in "Curriculum 21" by Heidi Hayes Jacobs I am reminded of the process of developing a curriculum. She talks about how we need to change our mindset about curriculum before we change it. We need to realize that we are teaching students during a new time of innovation, and we need to make sure that is evident in the curriculum. In order to do that she suggests we look into curriculum mapping, thinking about assessments, and giving time for professional development.
      I enjoyed reading Ch. 3, Jacobs focus's on the content areas, and ways to improve the content within them so they become more relevant and students will be able to gain lifelong skills from it. Things as simple as using different types of maps, and using them in other content areas, not just Social Studies. Chapter 4 wraps is up with different ways we can use time and space to best benefit the students. I believe this book as taught me to think outside the box a little bit when it comes to teaching. We need to change things, and know that sometimes the way things are happening isn't the best for students. I feel that I've been given some ideas of how I will be able to at least update my own curriculum, and be able to deliver it to students in a more meaningful way.
   

Blog Reflection- Weeks 6-7

    Looking back my my blogs I realized what a great way blogging was to reflect of the information we were discussing. All of the information was relevant to the times that it was blogged, which made it all very authentic to the way I was feeling at that time. I think that blogging would be a great way for students in a classroom to reflect on what they were learning and how they felt about it. I also think that it would be a good way for teachers and students to connect in different ways.
    Thinking back on this class, and looking at my blogs, I think technology is something I learned a lot about. I believe the incorporation of technology into curriculum is something that needs to be prioritized. There is such a large benefit, if done correctly, it seems to be that it should definitely be a priority.
     I have really enjoyed the blogging portion of this class. Although I may not continue to post as much at this point in my life, I will definitely continue to read them.

How should technology and curriculum mix? Week 5

      I've learned a lot this week about how technology should be implemented into curriculum, and how to do it in the most meaningful ways. What I still ponder is if we should have technology be its own "subject" or work on integrating it with all subjects.
      We continually hear the benefits of a interdisciplinary lesson plan, and how we should be should try to relate lessons into all subjects. Would creating technology as its own subject discourage teachers to put it into their lessons in meaningful ways? I would like to say no, but I'm not sure.  On the other hand if we are left to integrate technology into our lesson plans on our own, who's to say thats going to happen...teachers would be responsible for finding the deeper ways to bring technology into all the subjects. If teachers haven't had the proper training, or been exposed to the resources available this would be very difficult to do. Let's face it...there are a lot of teachers that are not exposed to these things, and some school districts don't see it as important as some other issues schools are facing.
     All in all I think we can all agree that technology needs to be a part of the curriculum. If it is its own subject, that shouldn't discount the fact that it should also be included in other subjects.

Curriculum Issues- Week 5

     I found Marion Brady's article Eight Problems with Common Core very interesting. I believe the 8 problems are straight forward in the fact they are problems with Common Core. I'm not sure how exactly sure how we should go about  changing them, or what the best ways to rework them so they aren't problems anymore. 

      There are a couple I didn't think of as problems until I read this article. Do we want kids to be standard, all uniform, without being unique? I do think there should be a national Common Core for with standards, but I think those standards should allow students to show their uniqueness, and their creative minds. Also, the ways testing is occurring isn't in line with the ways we are being taught as teachers, to teach our students. We need to start seeing different forms of assessment as necessary, and common place, like portfolios, reflections, and self-assessment.

1.) The word “standards” gets an approving nod from the public (and from most educators) because it means “performance that meets a standard.” However, the word also means “like everybody else,” and standardizing minds is what the Standards try to do. Common Core Standards fans sell the first meaning; the Standards deliver the second meaning. Standardized minds are about as far out of sync with deep-seated American values as it’s possible to get.

2.) The Common Core Standards are a set-up for national standardized tests, tests that can’t evaluate complex thought, can’t avoid cultural bias, can’t measure non-verbal learning, can’t predict anything of consequence.

Global Trends- Weeks 4

      In chapter 6 of Curriculum 21 A Classroom as wide as the world, global trends are discussed, along as the importance of keeping up with them and the importance of it. I believe that it is true that we are raising children/students to compete in a completely different era, with different expectations and needs.  According to  Jacobs "Our national goal should e that al students must graduate from high-school college ready and globally competent, prepared to compete, connect and cooperate with their peers around the world." (p.101).
       I will use the word compete, for lack of better words. I believe that we need to be preparing our students to not only be competing with their peers, but to be prepared to compete with other nations. Thinking of learning on a global level will help prepare students to be prepared to go in the "global world" that we now live in. In order for students/children/adults to be able to compete, relate and work with people form other areas, we need to be educated about them. We should know, and be teaching about world (as a whole), how to communicate with it, and how to respect it.

Yong Zhao Interview- Week 4

"The United States should deepen what it does best, rather then trying to catch up to developing nations" -Yong Zhao
The very first line in this article really got me interested in the interview. First, when I thought of education in China, I thought it was wonderful. The perception I had on Chinese education was it  produced students who scored high on tests, and appear to be very smart. I think most initial reactions to this idea, and perception is...YES! Let's do what they do!. But after reading this interview, it seems to be the way students are taught in Chinese schools is  what we call teaching to the test, isn't that what we are trying to get away from? Yes, we want students to read well, and be able to memorize. But, from what I've learned about teaching, that is not the most important thing. Some of the things teachers are teaching students in class can't be measured on a standardized test. I don't think we should discount that fact that teachers allowing students to be creative and to think for themselves is a very important part of student development. We need to embrace what we do well, not just compare.

The Myth of Charter Schools- Week 4

       The article "The Myth of Charter Schools" by Diane Ravitch was very interesting. She begins the article by talking about David Guggenheim's documentary "Waiting for Superman". As I started reading I almost felt attacked. Although I am not teaching now, when I do teach I will be teaching in a public school system.
       Guggenheim's thought's and opinions (not facts) were very harsh. He states that bad teachers create bad students, and the bad teachers are protected by unions so they can't be fired. I do believe in some instances this could have potential truth, but not in the broad spectrum he portrayed it to be. Information can always be twisted, and be made to look better by manipulating the facts to fit the point someone is trying to make. In this case, the facts are not only manipulated, but they are fabricated. By doing this he has created the stereotype that all public schools are bad, and filled with teachers that don't care, and that all charter schools are wonderful, and filled with top notch teachers.
       Guggenheim fails to acknowledge any correlation bewteen the students families income, or the budgets of the schools. In many cases the charter schools get three times the funding per student then public schools do. Along with the administrators making 3-4 times as much as some public school administrators. Should money effect a child's education? No. Does money effect a child's education? Yes.
       At the end of the article Ravitch point out how schools in different countries, that are higher ranking than the United States view their school system. For example, Finland has 15% less of their students living in poverty then the U.S. does. Finland also has a far more intense screening system for teachers, I believe this only benefits the students, but the teachers also. Teachers have higher salaries, more support, and better working conditions. All of that seem to have a correlation to higher student performance. 
       In the end I believe any school can be amazing, rather it is public, or private. The school needs to give the students, and teachers the support, and resources they require. Curriculum needs to be relevant, and meaningful to students. School should be a place that students can go, and their only concern should be learning, and growing as students. But, that would be in a perfect world...how do we get there is the reality of the society we live in now?