My personal contribution to the film was pretty small, I was just another student. My interpretation of the overall message in our class film was that, what they teach you in school is not directly relevant to the every day life of high school students in particular. We are so tied down to our high school routine and roles of the smart students, the chatty girls, or the rebels, it becomes our main focus in school and the curicculum is irrelevant to the students and in this case, the teacher as well.
I think this film emphasizes in contrast how schools are very mechanic and everything has to be done a certain way. They are robotic in the schedules and curriculums, social/human problems are not allowed get in the way of academic growth. Students and teachers are expected to keep their personal problems outside of the classroom. Whereas in this film, the teacher's actions relfect on his personal problems and he seems to be taking out his anger on the students.
Contrasting with the films we watched in class, all of them have the teacher being some sort of inspiration to the students. The students all grow to respect the new teacher as they come in for their first time teaching (Dangerous Minds). Which realistically, newer teachers are not as respected as the teachers who have been teaching for a couple years (at least from my own experience). Which is like in the class video, the students do not take him seriously. Even when he lashes out at them, once he leaves, all the students go back to their business. Contrasting with the films we watched in class, the students are changed by the teacher (Freedom Writers).
I think possibly because school is treated as a place students dread because of the mechanic and robotic routine of school, students fall into the traps of high school drama and conflicts which require a savior such as a teacher who is at the scene of the crime. Students feel that they have their lives planned out for them so there is this need to step out of bounds to be original, do your own thing, or to just want something that might not fit into the schedule or the routine (like Neil from Dead Poet's Society) but this going against the grain causes problems where the student needs somewhere to go to vent out these problems so they go to a teacher who is sort of the by stander in the situation who can give a valid input.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
HW 50
GATTO
Gatto discussed the main steps of school: school is a sorting machine, the students must be obdeient, the teacher chooses the curriculum for the students, the student is only as good as the teacher detrmines they are, and the student is under constant surveilance. Basically, the six lessons are trying to form and mold the students to be students that are easy to teach and easy to sort into the appropriate places in society. If the student is cooperative in the classroom and treats the teacher as the authority figure who thinks for everyone, they can be easily sorted. Basically, the teacher has all the power in the classroom and the students are just there to absorb what is being taught without any individual thought or contribution.
Gatto does not agree with these steps, "This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis" the steps do not allow for the teachers to actually learn anything but to accept the authoritive figure and be obedient. "Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational" The steps create an inauthentic environment that is not natural for teacher or students.
FREIRE
Freire talks about the banking concept of education where learning is similar to a commodity, the teacher offers the information and the student takes it, "the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." The student only regurgitates the information provided by the teacher rather than thinking about it, "the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits."
DELPIT:
Delpit believes that test taking does not accurately determine the intellegence of a student, "If teachers make judgments only according to the tests being inflicted on the children by the schools, then they can misunderstand their children's brilliance... these children carry a brilliance that you have little access to. You have to figure out how to bring that brilliance out." The main focus in looking at the brilliance of a student is looking at their strengths and weaknesses as a learner.
Delpit discusses that traditional way of learning (the steps) are necessary but there should be opportunities for students to be aware of how they are learning and what they are learning."I suggest that students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well" students should take what the teachers teach as information to not just memorize and spit back out but to think about it for themselves.
MS. D
She says he had a good experience at her Brown, there were no core curriculums and it was a self motivated school. She specifically wanted to teach at a public school that was anti regents test prep. Ms. D discussed how difficult it was for her to find a school where her main focus in teaching was not preparing the students for the standardized tests. She went by the phrase "breath no depth" and she had researched Ted Sizer were she had found a very specific interest in his way of teaching. She seems to be very pleased with her job at school of the future, she loves the exhibitions that we do, the freedom in the curriculum, and that the teachers are able to get to know the students.
MR. MANLEY
When asked why Mr. Manley decided to beome a teacer, he explained that teaching is a real humanistic job where you can really connect with people. He compared his experience teaching at SOF to a previous school he taught at where the teachers were not allowed to connect with the students at all. He had to teach grammar for a whole semester whereas at SOF he chose what to teach the students and he was able to have close realtionships with the students. But a negative aspect of SOF that he mentioned was that students were more motivated to hand in homeowork at the previous school he taught at.
Manley also discussed the difference between a progressive groovy style of teaching and traditional style of teaching. This lead into his experiences teaching with these two different styles of teaching. Relating to the issue of motivation, at the more traditional school, the students wwere more obdeient and did the work to get the grade whereas at SOF as a progressive style, the environment is more laidback I think especially at SOF because the majority of the students are so comfortable in the school, being there through middle school in addition to having close relationships with the teachers, students are less motivated to do the work. Manley also compares how in the traditional way of teaching, the students just get the work done where in a more progressive style, the students think about why and they have their own opinion on what they are learning.
Gatto discussed the main steps of school: school is a sorting machine, the students must be obdeient, the teacher chooses the curriculum for the students, the student is only as good as the teacher detrmines they are, and the student is under constant surveilance. Basically, the six lessons are trying to form and mold the students to be students that are easy to teach and easy to sort into the appropriate places in society. If the student is cooperative in the classroom and treats the teacher as the authority figure who thinks for everyone, they can be easily sorted. Basically, the teacher has all the power in the classroom and the students are just there to absorb what is being taught without any individual thought or contribution.
Gatto does not agree with these steps, "This curriculum produces moral and intellectual paralysis" the steps do not allow for the teachers to actually learn anything but to accept the authoritive figure and be obedient. "Institutional schoolteachers are destructive to children's development. Nobody survives the Six-Lesson Curriculum unscathed, not even the instructors. The method is deeply and profoundly anti-educational" The steps create an inauthentic environment that is not natural for teacher or students.
FREIRE
Freire talks about the banking concept of education where learning is similar to a commodity, the teacher offers the information and the student takes it, "the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." The student only regurgitates the information provided by the teacher rather than thinking about it, "the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits."
DELPIT:
Delpit believes that test taking does not accurately determine the intellegence of a student, "If teachers make judgments only according to the tests being inflicted on the children by the schools, then they can misunderstand their children's brilliance... these children carry a brilliance that you have little access to. You have to figure out how to bring that brilliance out." The main focus in looking at the brilliance of a student is looking at their strengths and weaknesses as a learner.
Delpit discusses that traditional way of learning (the steps) are necessary but there should be opportunities for students to be aware of how they are learning and what they are learning."I suggest that students must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American life, not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well" students should take what the teachers teach as information to not just memorize and spit back out but to think about it for themselves.
MS. D
She says he had a good experience at her Brown, there were no core curriculums and it was a self motivated school. She specifically wanted to teach at a public school that was anti regents test prep. Ms. D discussed how difficult it was for her to find a school where her main focus in teaching was not preparing the students for the standardized tests. She went by the phrase "breath no depth" and she had researched Ted Sizer were she had found a very specific interest in his way of teaching. She seems to be very pleased with her job at school of the future, she loves the exhibitions that we do, the freedom in the curriculum, and that the teachers are able to get to know the students.
MR. MANLEY
When asked why Mr. Manley decided to beome a teacer, he explained that teaching is a real humanistic job where you can really connect with people. He compared his experience teaching at SOF to a previous school he taught at where the teachers were not allowed to connect with the students at all. He had to teach grammar for a whole semester whereas at SOF he chose what to teach the students and he was able to have close realtionships with the students. But a negative aspect of SOF that he mentioned was that students were more motivated to hand in homeowork at the previous school he taught at.
Manley also discussed the difference between a progressive groovy style of teaching and traditional style of teaching. This lead into his experiences teaching with these two different styles of teaching. Relating to the issue of motivation, at the more traditional school, the students wwere more obdeient and did the work to get the grade whereas at SOF as a progressive style, the environment is more laidback I think especially at SOF because the majority of the students are so comfortable in the school, being there through middle school in addition to having close relationships with the teachers, students are less motivated to do the work. Manley also compares how in the traditional way of teaching, the students just get the work done where in a more progressive style, the students think about why and they have their own opinion on what they are learning.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Treatment for Savior/Teacher Move- HW 48
The film begins from the perspective of select 2 students from a humanities class and the perspective of the teacher. The first perspective is from the teacher, Benjamin Brooks, he walks into the school building anxious and prepared. Next is the nerdy girl, Anna Robertson she walks into the school building, shoulders slumped and avoiding eye contact with anyone and a book in hand. The next perspective is the popular cool guy, Jimmy Kendall he walks in with his head held high and his ipod blasting an edgy but popular song.
These two students go to their seperate advisories, Anna is sitting in the science lab studying. Jimmy is in the next room talking to his friends and being told to be quiet by Mr. Morrison, the health teacher just as it was time to go to first period. All while Mr. Brooks is preparing for the humanities lesson today.
Anna and Jimmy check their schedules and find their way to their humanities class. Once they arrive, Mr. Brooks is writing a question on the board and all the students form several clusters, Jimmy and Anna go to their seperate clusters of friends who happen to have the same class. Most of the kids are mumbling and snickering at the new teacher, wondering what he is going to be like. Mr. Brooks finishes writing the question and the students immediately are put off by the question and do not want to answer it, "What would you do if you only had one day to live?"
Most of the student's immediate responses are, "How am I supposed to answer that?" or "Nah, I've got time, I don't need to worry about it" and the funny guy says "I gotta live for more than one day, I've got a date on Friday" the class responds, "ayeeee" and there is a circle of high fives with the cool kids. Jimmy, as one of the cool kids, chimes in with the rest of that cluster. While the rest of the class quietly laughs to themselves and wait for the teacher to start the class.
Mr. Brooks is kind of nervous so now there's an awkward silence while he gets his thoughts together as the students look around questioningly, wondering if the teacher knows what he is doing. He says "Oh right...this is where I'm supposed to teach..." another awkward silence. "I'm Mr. Brooks and I will be your humanities teacher for the next semester, now let's go around and everyone say your name and something about yourself." Everyone says their name and something like, their hobbies, or favorite foods, etc, but the protagonists say things about themselves pertaining to the question Mr. Brooks wrote on the board eariler. This catches Mr. Brook's attention and class ends just as Mr. Brooks wants to discuss what the two students said. All the students make their way out of class and disperse to their next class.
The next day starts off similar to the previous but Anna, Jimmy and Mr. Brooks enter the school angrily. As soon as it is time for first period, the three main characters are in the same room. Mr. Brooks looked at his lesson plan just as all the students sat down and decides to go on a walking trip to the park. The class has mixed reactions, Anna and Jimmy particularly are satisfied with the park trip. The three main characters are trying to get their mind off of what was bothering them. The class gets to the park and Mr. Brooks has the class do an activity that the majority of the class enjoys.
The class, now more comfortable with each other while merging clusters, Mr. Brooks has everyone sit in a circle on the grass and he asks that everyone goes around and says the first thing that comes to mind, anything. Then he asks that everyone think about the one thing they want at that very moment. Mr. Brooks then asks everyone to go around and say at least one thing that is preventing them from getting what they want. The class opens up, mainly focusing in Anna and Jimmy. Mr. Brooks becomes the savior/teacher who shows the students how to express themselves.
These two students go to their seperate advisories, Anna is sitting in the science lab studying. Jimmy is in the next room talking to his friends and being told to be quiet by Mr. Morrison, the health teacher just as it was time to go to first period. All while Mr. Brooks is preparing for the humanities lesson today.
Anna and Jimmy check their schedules and find their way to their humanities class. Once they arrive, Mr. Brooks is writing a question on the board and all the students form several clusters, Jimmy and Anna go to their seperate clusters of friends who happen to have the same class. Most of the kids are mumbling and snickering at the new teacher, wondering what he is going to be like. Mr. Brooks finishes writing the question and the students immediately are put off by the question and do not want to answer it, "What would you do if you only had one day to live?"
Most of the student's immediate responses are, "How am I supposed to answer that?" or "Nah, I've got time, I don't need to worry about it" and the funny guy says "I gotta live for more than one day, I've got a date on Friday" the class responds, "ayeeee" and there is a circle of high fives with the cool kids. Jimmy, as one of the cool kids, chimes in with the rest of that cluster. While the rest of the class quietly laughs to themselves and wait for the teacher to start the class.
Mr. Brooks is kind of nervous so now there's an awkward silence while he gets his thoughts together as the students look around questioningly, wondering if the teacher knows what he is doing. He says "Oh right...this is where I'm supposed to teach..." another awkward silence. "I'm Mr. Brooks and I will be your humanities teacher for the next semester, now let's go around and everyone say your name and something about yourself." Everyone says their name and something like, their hobbies, or favorite foods, etc, but the protagonists say things about themselves pertaining to the question Mr. Brooks wrote on the board eariler. This catches Mr. Brook's attention and class ends just as Mr. Brooks wants to discuss what the two students said. All the students make their way out of class and disperse to their next class.
The next day starts off similar to the previous but Anna, Jimmy and Mr. Brooks enter the school angrily. As soon as it is time for first period, the three main characters are in the same room. Mr. Brooks looked at his lesson plan just as all the students sat down and decides to go on a walking trip to the park. The class has mixed reactions, Anna and Jimmy particularly are satisfied with the park trip. The three main characters are trying to get their mind off of what was bothering them. The class gets to the park and Mr. Brooks has the class do an activity that the majority of the class enjoys.
The class, now more comfortable with each other while merging clusters, Mr. Brooks has everyone sit in a circle on the grass and he asks that everyone goes around and says the first thing that comes to mind, anything. Then he asks that everyone think about the one thing they want at that very moment. Mr. Brooks then asks everyone to go around and say at least one thing that is preventing them from getting what they want. The class opens up, mainly focusing in Anna and Jimmy. Mr. Brooks becomes the savior/teacher who shows the students how to express themselves.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Class Film Preparation 1- Hw 47
-The students should have the "lovable" tone in their community similar to Dangerous Minds, it would make it realistic in relation to SOF.
-Students are unmotivated due to self consciousness similar to Dead Poet's Society this can be realistic in certain cases, maybe not for everyone and this can be shown in the film.
-Students are unmotivated because they do not believe school holds any significance in their life, there are more important things, also very realistic.
-Teacher uses analogies that relate specifically to the student's lives.
-Teacher has a quirky personality that the students at first find annoying but come to relate to.
-The trope of the dramatic change of how the students feel about the teacher from disapproval to approval.
- Along with the trope of change in student's attitude towards the teacher, should be a change in setting/tone to emphasize this change.
-Students are unmotivated due to self consciousness similar to Dead Poet's Society this can be realistic in certain cases, maybe not for everyone and this can be shown in the film.
-Students are unmotivated because they do not believe school holds any significance in their life, there are more important things, also very realistic.
-Teacher uses analogies that relate specifically to the student's lives.
-Teacher has a quirky personality that the students at first find annoying but come to relate to.
-The trope of the dramatic change of how the students feel about the teacher from disapproval to approval.
- Along with the trope of change in student's attitude towards the teacher, should be a change in setting/tone to emphasize this change.
Research and Writing- HW 46
Book: The End of Education by Neil Postman
Topic: College
The End of Education by Neil Postman is about the critique of American education and possible alternatives to education in the United States. Postman talks about some of the major aspects of education including, authority, media and views of knowledge and education, and why and how students can be motivated to go to school and learn.
This relates to my topic of college and how the expectation of education had changed over the years. College is becoming more and more of a requirement in the work force. This makes me wonder the real reasons students go to college. The reasons may have to do with authority figures in the student's lives such as parents and teachers. Specific to education, the teacher/faculty of school seem to be the main authority figures but in the lives of the students, the parents in addition to teachers play an authority figure role that affects the decisions the student makes. In addition, media and expectations from society affect whether a student decides to go to college or not. Since more and more people are going to college, it has become an expectation in society. Finally, the student themself, the motivation they have to continue learning in college.
Postman discusses the role of the authority and the "sin" of the student being too dependent on the authority figure. "The sin is in our unwillingness to examine our own beliefs, and in believing that our authorities cannot be wrong"(128). It seems tha often times in schooling (at least from my own experience), students expect the teachers to spoon feed the information to us, it is their job to give us all the information as the authority figures,"Knowledge is presented as a commodity to be acquired, never as a human struggle to understand, to overcome falsity, to stumble toward the truth."(116). It is the studnet's responsibility to take what the teacher says and think about it for themself instead of relying on the teacher to spell out the answers to everything. The student must prove they are thinking about the material. Students must think for themselves and make their own decisions but take the authority figures' information into consideration specifically when it comes to deciding whether or not to go to college after high school.
An important aspect of education, is the student's imput and motivation to learn.
"Neitzsche's famous aphorism is relevant here: 'He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.' This applies as much to learning as to living"(4). If the student has a good reason for them to educate themself, they will deal with many possible ways of doing so. If the student is motivated enough, they have the potential to learn in almost any situation.
Topic: College
The End of Education by Neil Postman is about the critique of American education and possible alternatives to education in the United States. Postman talks about some of the major aspects of education including, authority, media and views of knowledge and education, and why and how students can be motivated to go to school and learn.
This relates to my topic of college and how the expectation of education had changed over the years. College is becoming more and more of a requirement in the work force. This makes me wonder the real reasons students go to college. The reasons may have to do with authority figures in the student's lives such as parents and teachers. Specific to education, the teacher/faculty of school seem to be the main authority figures but in the lives of the students, the parents in addition to teachers play an authority figure role that affects the decisions the student makes. In addition, media and expectations from society affect whether a student decides to go to college or not. Since more and more people are going to college, it has become an expectation in society. Finally, the student themself, the motivation they have to continue learning in college.
Postman discusses the role of the authority and the "sin" of the student being too dependent on the authority figure. "The sin is in our unwillingness to examine our own beliefs, and in believing that our authorities cannot be wrong"(128). It seems tha often times in schooling (at least from my own experience), students expect the teachers to spoon feed the information to us, it is their job to give us all the information as the authority figures,"Knowledge is presented as a commodity to be acquired, never as a human struggle to understand, to overcome falsity, to stumble toward the truth."(116). It is the studnet's responsibility to take what the teacher says and think about it for themself instead of relying on the teacher to spell out the answers to everything. The student must prove they are thinking about the material. Students must think for themselves and make their own decisions but take the authority figures' information into consideration specifically when it comes to deciding whether or not to go to college after high school.
An important aspect of education, is the student's imput and motivation to learn.
"Neitzsche's famous aphorism is relevant here: 'He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.' This applies as much to learning as to living"(4). If the student has a good reason for them to educate themself, they will deal with many possible ways of doing so. If the student is motivated enough, they have the potential to learn in almost any situation.
Monday, March 15, 2010
More Thoughts on School- Hw 45
Ted Sizer's Speech
Ted Sizer seems to have a very simplistic view on how schools should be, things should be done according to the people in school (students and teachers), and not as much by the book. The students and teachers should have the freedom to do what they need to to fit their roles, and the curriculum should be able to fit for the teacher and the student. The set up seems to be planned out there's no room for uncertainties, "How do I teach toward deep understanding-the application of knowledge to an unfamiliar situation- when the syllabus allows no time for plumbing the unfamiliar?" What I found interesting was that he also says the students and teachers should "Get the incentives right," that the teachers and students should want to be in school for the right reason. Essentially, according to Sizer, the main reason student's learn and go to school, is to learn to think and ask questions.
Hirsch's Article
Sizer has a imminent view on how schools should be, Hirsch has a transcendent view. Hirsch believes school curriculums should be aimed towards what the students will face in their lives such as literature (newspapers and books) and standardized tests (SATs), "Students who possess this knowledge are prepared to participate in civic life, move up career ladders, succeed in college, converse confidently with a wide variety of Americans with whom they work or socialize, and generally have the esteem that comes with being regarded as an educated person." Basically that in order to fit in with the American culture as an adult, there are things that one must be educated about, and they are educated about this in school with the curriculum provided.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
Intellectually, they just have different ideas on what students should know. Sizer has a view which allows students to be on different levels of knowledge as long as there is progression in their development of thinking skills whereas Hirsch's view of a student's intellect should be based on the expectations of society. I believe that generally, in both views, the emotional state of the student would be similar, regardless of the curriculum there is still pressure from parents, peers, and society that should be accounted for. Hirsch's view of school seems to be more practical than Sizer's because Hirsch's goes along with society's view whereas Sizer's is a little more independent to that. Expectations of fitting the American culture is a norm that is difficult to avoid thus, Sizer's theory less practical. I think it would be very difficult for the two theories to be adapted to work together because they have different goals. Hirsch's goal is to get to the next level whereas Sizer's goal is to learn and improve.
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?
I belive that Sizer's theory is resonant in my experience, School of the Future has a unique way of progressive learning with a different curriculum than most high schools. But recently, Hirsch's theory is becoming more resonant looking forward to college in the future. The competition between other schools that are more like Hirsch's theory are at a higher advantage because the students are easier to sort than students following Sizer's theory who are on different levels.
3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?
It makes me think about my own incentives for school. I belive it is kind of hard to put your own reasoning for being in school when most of it is decided for you at such a young age. In addition there is the incentive of the teacher that matters as well. If the teacher has a good reason to teach aside from the money and going through the motions, the student follows and has a good reason to learn as well. If the teacher in interested, it allows the student to be too.
Ted Sizer seems to have a very simplistic view on how schools should be, things should be done according to the people in school (students and teachers), and not as much by the book. The students and teachers should have the freedom to do what they need to to fit their roles, and the curriculum should be able to fit for the teacher and the student. The set up seems to be planned out there's no room for uncertainties, "How do I teach toward deep understanding-the application of knowledge to an unfamiliar situation- when the syllabus allows no time for plumbing the unfamiliar?" What I found interesting was that he also says the students and teachers should "Get the incentives right," that the teachers and students should want to be in school for the right reason. Essentially, according to Sizer, the main reason student's learn and go to school, is to learn to think and ask questions.
Hirsch's Article
Sizer has a imminent view on how schools should be, Hirsch has a transcendent view. Hirsch believes school curriculums should be aimed towards what the students will face in their lives such as literature (newspapers and books) and standardized tests (SATs), "Students who possess this knowledge are prepared to participate in civic life, move up career ladders, succeed in college, converse confidently with a wide variety of Americans with whom they work or socialize, and generally have the esteem that comes with being regarded as an educated person." Basically that in order to fit in with the American culture as an adult, there are things that one must be educated about, and they are educated about this in school with the curriculum provided.
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?
Intellectually, they just have different ideas on what students should know. Sizer has a view which allows students to be on different levels of knowledge as long as there is progression in their development of thinking skills whereas Hirsch's view of a student's intellect should be based on the expectations of society. I believe that generally, in both views, the emotional state of the student would be similar, regardless of the curriculum there is still pressure from parents, peers, and society that should be accounted for. Hirsch's view of school seems to be more practical than Sizer's because Hirsch's goes along with society's view whereas Sizer's is a little more independent to that. Expectations of fitting the American culture is a norm that is difficult to avoid thus, Sizer's theory less practical. I think it would be very difficult for the two theories to be adapted to work together because they have different goals. Hirsch's goal is to get to the next level whereas Sizer's goal is to learn and improve.
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?
I belive that Sizer's theory is resonant in my experience, School of the Future has a unique way of progressive learning with a different curriculum than most high schools. But recently, Hirsch's theory is becoming more resonant looking forward to college in the future. The competition between other schools that are more like Hirsch's theory are at a higher advantage because the students are easier to sort than students following Sizer's theory who are on different levels.
3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?
It makes me think about my own incentives for school. I belive it is kind of hard to put your own reasoning for being in school when most of it is decided for you at such a young age. In addition there is the incentive of the teacher that matters as well. If the teacher has a good reason to teach aside from the money and going through the motions, the student follows and has a good reason to learn as well. If the teacher in interested, it allows the student to be too.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Hw 44 Big Expectations for School
Liberal Arts Education:
This website says that liberal arts colleges "provide an exceptionally effective learning environment for developing the kind of intellectual power and propensity for action that the world needs to tackle the daunting challenges we face." Basically, that liberal arts colleges are benficial because they allow students to solve problems, this is the mindset that is expected of students in this type of education.
In addition, liberal arts has "an obligation to help our students find a way to translate what they have learned into a potential career direction." The transcendant way of teaching, that education will lead to higher levels and lead to overall success, the ladder of education. But solving the problem at hand is iminant, dealing with the present situation. It seems as though liberal arts college has aspects of both transcendent (ladder) and iminant (current situation) education although arguably, the balance may not be evenly distributed I would guess that it is more transcendent than iminant because the main reasons people go to college to begin with are for the opportunities it provides for the future.
Obama's School Speech:
He talks about how no matter what you want to do in life, it requires an education "And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers." In some ways I agree, people do need to have a good background of knowledge in order to get into different work forces but I feel that many of requirements for education are exaggerated, maybe not everything we learn is absolutely necessary and there may be things left out in the curriculum.
He also says, "You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it" This seems like a very justified view on how people get into careers, that everybody works for their job, so they deserve the job they have which I do not necessarily agree with. Obviously a job is not going to fall into your lap without any effort at all. There has to be some sort of effort to obtain a career. But competition and connections I believe go hand in hand, if you have connections, you have a higher advantage when competeing for jobs so not every job necessarily requires the same amount of effort and 'hard work' from everyone if you know the right people.
Institutions:
This website talks about the benefits of institutions..."Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. And this trick is performed by making these grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones." Basically that institutions allow for everyone to think the same way so that everyone has common knowledge. IT seems to me a form of manipulation for people to understand each other and cooperate to keep society running through institutions.
This website says that liberal arts colleges "provide an exceptionally effective learning environment for developing the kind of intellectual power and propensity for action that the world needs to tackle the daunting challenges we face." Basically, that liberal arts colleges are benficial because they allow students to solve problems, this is the mindset that is expected of students in this type of education.
In addition, liberal arts has "an obligation to help our students find a way to translate what they have learned into a potential career direction." The transcendant way of teaching, that education will lead to higher levels and lead to overall success, the ladder of education. But solving the problem at hand is iminant, dealing with the present situation. It seems as though liberal arts college has aspects of both transcendent (ladder) and iminant (current situation) education although arguably, the balance may not be evenly distributed I would guess that it is more transcendent than iminant because the main reasons people go to college to begin with are for the opportunities it provides for the future.
Obama's School Speech:
He talks about how no matter what you want to do in life, it requires an education "And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers." In some ways I agree, people do need to have a good background of knowledge in order to get into different work forces but I feel that many of requirements for education are exaggerated, maybe not everything we learn is absolutely necessary and there may be things left out in the curriculum.
He also says, "You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it" This seems like a very justified view on how people get into careers, that everybody works for their job, so they deserve the job they have which I do not necessarily agree with. Obviously a job is not going to fall into your lap without any effort at all. There has to be some sort of effort to obtain a career. But competition and connections I believe go hand in hand, if you have connections, you have a higher advantage when competeing for jobs so not every job necessarily requires the same amount of effort and 'hard work' from everyone if you know the right people.
Institutions:
This website talks about the benefits of institutions..."Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. And this trick is performed by making these grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones." Basically that institutions allow for everyone to think the same way so that everyone has common knowledge. IT seems to me a form of manipulation for people to understand each other and cooperate to keep society running through institutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)