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?
       

Mind Shift- Week 3

In chapter 13 of Jacobs book she talks about shifting the way we think. She highlights three mind-shifts #1 FROM knowing right answers TO knowing how to behave when answers are not readily apparent. #2 FROM transmitting meaning TO constructing meaning. #3 FROM external evaluation TO self-assessment (p.223-224). These three mind-shifts are necessary for teachers to embrace if we want to change the curriculum into a more modern curriculum that will not only give students the knowledge to go into the world and become successful adults, but it will teach them to be able to think for themselves, to be able to solve problems, and to be able to be beneficial assets to society.

Common Core- Week 3

Common Core has been thrown out there as a common set of standards, but other then that...what is it? While exploring on Edutopia I found a great, short video from the Hunt Institute about them. I would like to share a little about what I found. The United States ranks #14 in education, to me that is unacceptable. Common Core was created by the states, for the states. The looked into other countries education and formed the best standards not to only prepare students for college, but for the workforce. The Common Core standards are clear, consistent, rigorous, and relevant. At the current time 45 states, District of Columbia, the Department of Defense (all military base schools), and 4 territories are following them. My question are they continually being looked over and updated? I don't believe education can be timeless so unless they are kept current student will be learning the same things, and be on the same level, but they may be out dated.

Technological Motivating- Week 2

In chapter 12 of Jacobs book she gives a few examples of how technology was brought into a classroom. In one instance students took more pride in their work when they knew it would be shared through pictures on the projectors the next morning. Students want to impress not only their teachers, but their peers too. Something as simple as candid pictures of the students working on the projects was enough to give them the sense of ownership to become prideful of they work.
Material needs to be delivered to students in interesting, relevant ways if they want the students to take as much as they can out of it. Students claim to be bored because the perceive the methods they are learning by as "irrelevant". The presentation of material is just as important as the content itself.

Form & Function- Week 2

In chapter 4 of Heidi Jacobs book she talks a lot about form vs. function. She notes that form should always follow function, and a whole is the sum of its parts. Although these seem like very obvious statements, I think that it's clear these "words of wisdom" aren't necessarily followed in the school setting. For example how is giving the students a written test on different species of trees more functional them going out and looking at them? Point blank...it's not.
It is important that everything has a reason in the classroom. From the lessons to decor to integration on technology. Grouping is something that Jacobs talks a lot about. Have you ever sat in a classroom and has the teacher make each student say the numbers 1-4, in the end all going to your group number you said? What is the intention of grouping that way? Wouldn't there have been a more beneficial way to get students together? Jacobs says there are three types of grouping: 1.) Institutional grouping is based on fundamental criteria like age, gender and development. 2.) Instructional grouping are the teachers choices in response to the internal needs of the classroom. 3.) Independent grouping is more voluntary in nature, and usually take place in out door settings. Notice there is no "just because" group. We all need to make sure we have reasons for what we do, and not just be doing it out of habit, or because thats what other teachers in the past have done.