After the readings and class last week, I realize there's so much to teaching I have yet to learn. It's a little overwhelming thinking about so many aspects of the school system and at the same time teaching!
One of the questions brought up in class was How do we make decisions about what’s in the best interest for kids? This is what I’ve been thinking about when I read American Education by Joel Spring. I’m a fairly quick reader, but this chapter took a very long time to read because I kept stopping and thinking about each subject he approached. The first part of the chapter talks about how much influence businesses have in formulating educational policies. I was surprised to read that most public high school curriculum is geared toward giving students the basic academic information while teaching them the basic employability skills (attendance, timeliness, and good attendance habits) to create a population of entry-level employees for the work force.One part of the chapter focused on the social goals of schooling. It seems like more and more that the burden of raising children are given to the schools. We are expected to teach them what they are supposed to learn at home. But then again, there are many children that can benefit from this because they have no one at home teaching them.
Can the school attempt to solve all social problems while at the same time teaching students the core curriculum required? Who decides what moral values are to be taught in public schools?I understand the idea of wanting to show kids values, morals, responsibility, etc. There are many benefits of teaching these beliefs in the school. I agree with Horace Mann’s beliefs that if we can introduce these ideas to students, it would benefit the society as a whole. But we can’t possibly rely on schools to be the only place teaching children moral values. There’s no way that schools can replace parents and other influences. My question is how much do we teach children that does not involve academics? This is such a confusing topic for me because I know we can use schools to influence children to be a productive part of society, but there are so many different arguments about what to teach. For example, when New York City implemented the “Children of the Rainbow” curriculum in 1992, it infuriated many people of the community. I can see why. I’m sure that did not go well with the homophobics. But as a normal (very tolerant) person, I believe as long as tolerance is taught, it does not have to go to that extreme. Tolerance is being able to accept everyone for who they are, so why single out a group of people when it’s not necessary?
I have heard recently that many schools have taken soda and candy out of their vending machines and replaced it with healthy options. So in addition to teaching kids how to become a better person while learning math, reading, writing, schools are now taking on obesity in youths!!! Yes, I agree that it is a genuine concern, and it can never hurt to promote healthy diets and healthy living, but how much more can the schools take on without actually replacing parents? I had a home education class in high school that included sewing, cooking, and baking. I never thought that the purpose of this class was to become a better housewife!We also mentioned school funding in class.
Ideally we want to give kids the best education possible in a public school setting. It really is painful to hear that Washington State schools get only 15% of the federal funding. Not only that, at the school board meeting I went to, I discovered that funding for Washington schools is 46th in the U.S. and we are 45th in the nation for spending per student. It was also pointed out that we are one of the richest states in that nation. So why is it that we provide the least amount of money to our students? Seems like the schools are tackling a lot of issues while not given adequate funding.
Perhaps all these issues are the reason why so many new teachers do not stay in teaching very long. I think the issues that are brought up in this class are great because it's relevant in preparing us for what's to come as teachers. We need to know what we are up against. As someone with little experience in a classroom, I am interested to learn these issues so I know what to expect as I go into teaching.
Spring does pack a lot into every chapter, doesn't he??
ReplyDeleteYou raise such great questions here, Rosie. I read somewhere that when society faces big challenges -- from intolerance to obesity -- they sort of avoid tackling those things head on and put the responsibility on schools to solve them for the next generation, and of COURSE we can't do it all, so then people get frustrated with schools for falling short.
We are going to keep talking about all of this all quarter (and beyond). Ayers is going to write of teaching the academic stuff within bigger investigations, in which kids learn so much more than isolated facts and figures.
The vending machine issues sort of pull a lot of your questions together, because the junk food was only there because schools could raise funds that they needed by selling that stuff to kids... but in the long-run, that wasn't good for kids.
It can feel really overwhelming. And it will feel less overwhelming by the end of this quarter, and I do keep encouraging people to keep thinking of the steps we can take even though we can't solve everything. What can you do in your first year of teaching? If your first five years of teaching? Once you're a leader in your building?
What are the special talents that you can bring to this work of creating schools that make much more sense?
One step at a time .....!