blog@geibtechforlearning

Megan Brockman

Politics of Public Schools:

After listening to Daggett and Stossel, I was pretty disenchanted with the idea of teaching. The political influence of the teacher’s unions was alarming. The whole globalization issue was even more alarming. When you realize that our level of competitiveness is so precarious, it is worrisome. I have to agree with Daggett that there are far too many standards. It appears to me that schools are more concerned with scores than truly if the children are learning. I have always been a little critical of standardized testing as an indicator of knowledge. I found Daggett more convincing because everything he stated was so logical. It makes me wonder if I will be able to teach without being mired in all of the politics. I always imagined myself in control of my classroom and for the most part the presentation of the curriculum. I hope that is true. I have been a proponent of unions, but the teacher’s union looked a little intimidating and far too powerful. The President of the union appeared to be consumed with her power.

Education is going to have to change, I agree.

I found Daggett most convincing in the idea that we need to find a balance of helping students to learn to the best of their ability but not going too far with increased standard requirements. I don’t necessarily agree with Daggett’s perspective on the U. S. “competing” with India, China and Eastern Europe as far as being the preeminent world power. McLaren is a bit on the extreme side. I found him to be the least convincing. I do however believe there are inequities in our country’s education system in that we have schools like Thousand Oaks where the test scores are higher than Hueneme’s. We need to finds ways to try to close that gap. Stossel was a bit extreme to say that America schools are “stupid” and produce “stupid” students. We have bright students. We just need to focus more on assisting students that aren’t as bright. We really do need to focus on no child left behind literally. It’s amazing watching the video that talked about how a student in high school was reading at a fourth grade level. I do agree that we can do better.

Watching the videos about our schools and how they are functioning was an eye opener. Both Willard Daggett and John Stossel made some very important points. Our schools are so wrapped up standards and testing that we may not be focusing on what is important for our children to learn in order to survive in our country’s future. While I see truth in each Daggett and Stossel’s views, I would like to hope that they are extreme and that we will be able to find a middle ground between globalization and letting our students be stupid. Peter McLaren’s view is very extreme but he also makes some good points about the disadvantages of the poor. Somehow we have to find a way to combine equality and excellence in our schools. We should be working together to make our schools preform as well as other schools in our nation. Our school system is like a monopoly and if there was more competition maybe the system would work hard to keep the students. All children deserve a well-balanced education and it is our job and I believe our passion to give it to them.

Jaime Estrada

Of the three view points presented, I find Critical Pedagogy the least convincing, I prefer the Liberal and Conservative theories, however, I have mixed emotions with both.

Not encouraging students to compete in a global economy is the main motive why I dislike Critical Pedagogy. It does nothing to advance students in curricular exams. Actually, it does the opposite, by portraying the instructors as the “enemy.” I have a difficult time accepting hard-working teacher who struggles to educate students to read and write is creating governing and inferior cultures. Everyone in this country (due to established regulations) have the same and equal opportunities for education. I do not believe there is a secret program to transform a student into a “slave.” The Spaniards used ignorance and deception to rule the America’s for hundreds of years. Education was the tool used by the oppressed to achieve freedom. If this philosophy were to be implemented, it would achieve the continuation of U.S. students being perceived by the world as “stupid.”

During his presentation, Mr. Daggett gave a number of ominous predictions; to support his statements, he also provided plenty of alarming facts. Most persons are not aware how much globalization is affecting our lives. They also do not realize; it is just the beginning. I have no issue with Mr. Daggett’s proposal of preparing students to reach educational excellence. I do have a problem with how he proposes in achieving this goal.
The principal issue I have about the “No child left behind” initiative is about the monetary consequences. We have learned from past experience how providing excessive financial assistance to schools was not the solution. Mr. Daggett mentions that the program is not perfect, but I think it would need much more than just a “tweak.” The program keeps the monopoly of teacher unions, and also does not provide the parents with school choices. The program does provide acceptance of ALL students. The plan offers the opportunity of academic excellence to all pupils regardless of their mental or physical limitations. The same cannot be said of counties like China or India.

I mostly subscribe to the Conservative principles regarding education. It is obvious that lethargic, incompetent or immoral instructors should be appropriately disciplined; without following an excessive and complicated process. The parents should have a choice of schools, no matter the geographic location of their home. I like the idea of schools having to compete for children. This offers better opportunities for students; rather than the usual stale, unproductive schools. The better the school performs, the higher the teacher compensation should be. Competition and choice are good! The not so attractive feature of this program is the issue of mentally or physically disadvantaged children. Without equality for all, there is a high probability for these children to be left behind.

Regardless of the philosophy implemented, it is ultimately the decision of the student to learn and excel. A child cannot be forced to learn…no matter how much money is spent.

Should a school be run like a business? There are advantages and disadvantages when considering this topic. If a school was run like a business then teachers would be pay on a merit system or how well they did their job. I feel that there are a lot of teachers today who are not working up to their full potential, thus letting the student’s education suffer. Many teachers that I have seen over the years are focusing more on when they are going to retire and not on the student’s education. The teachers know that they are tenured and that they will be pay regardless of what kind of job they do teaching the students. It is my opinion that if I was a teacher I would be more motivated to do a better job teaching if I knew I was not going to be paid my full salary. Also I would want to try even harder in order to obtain a bonus. On the other hand, who’s to say what teacher is doing a good job or not. If they base it on what the students have learned there is the problem of not all students learn the same or at the same time. Some students need more time to absorb and process the information. Sometimes it could talk a couple of years rather than one school year. If the teacher are only paid if the students do well and pass certain tests, then what about the many students who do not have support at home and just do not plain care if they pass or not. If schools were run like a business would it be fair to the teachers or to the students who want to learn. Teachers would spend more time trying to reach the trouble makers because they know they will not get paid. If this happens then what happens to the students who truly want to learn. Even though I think there is good and bad points on this topic I do not know who it could be enforce or how affective it would be. Sometimes if it is not broke then don’t fix it. Maybe things are not at the point where we would need to implement this to our school. However it is something to think about for the future.

Should parents and students have free choice when it comes to public schools? One would think yes, as a parent we have the right to choose what school is right for our child. Due to the fact every child is different and learns differently it would be in the child’s best interest to choose what school would be the best fit. However if everyone was able to choose their own school then what would happen to the schools that do not have the higher test scores. Something that should be considered is if the schools with the lower test scores and lower attendance those schools might be subject to close, thus never having a fair chance to improve their scores. Along with school choice comes the possibility of over crowding in the schools. As it is today over crowding in the classroom is a problem. I do feel that parents and students should have some say as to school they want their child to attend but how much of a say I’m not sure what is realistic.

The boy crisis in education: As a teacher it is our job to teach students. It should not matter what to student’s gender is or color of their skin. However there are many feminist teachers in our school today who believe it is their personal obligation to pay more attention to the girl students rather than the boys. I completely disagree with the feminist theory. Students are students in any shape or form. It is not only unfortunate but true that boys are being looked over. I have seen first hand how many teachers feel that boys should act like the girls. They should sit nicely in their chairs and pay attention. Not all girls are paying attention in the classroom a lot of them are writing notes and looking at the boys. Sure maybe they are quieter but that does not mean they are listening. I think that as a teacher it is our job to treat and teach all of our students equally regardless of gender or race.

Should a school be run like a business? There are advantages and disadvantages when considering this topic. If a school was run like a business then teachers would be pay on a merit system or how well they did their job. I feel that there are a lot of teachers today who are not working up to their full potential, thus letting the student’s education suffer. Many teachers that I have seen over the years are focusing more on when they are going to retire and not on the student’s education. The teachers know that they are tenured and that they will be pay regardless of what kind of job they do teaching the students. It is my opinion that if I was a teacher I would be more motivated to do a better job teaching if I knew I was not going to be paid my full salary. Also I would want to try even harder in order to obtain a bonus. On the other hand, who’s to say what teacher is doing a good job or not. If they base it on what the students have learned there is the problem of not all students learn the same or at the same time. Some students need more time to absorb and process the information. Sometimes it could talk a couple of years rather than one school year. If the teacher are only paid if the students do well and pass certain tests, then what about the many students who do not have support at home and just do not plain care if they pass or not. If schools were run like a business would it be fair to the teachers or to the students who want to learn. Teachers would spend more time trying to reach the trouble makers because they know they will not get paid. If this happens then what happens to the students who truly want to learn. Even though I think there is good and bad points on this topic I do not know who it could be enforce or how affective it would be. Sometimes if it is not broke then don’t fix it. Maybe things are not at the point where we would need to implement this to our school. However it is something to think about for the future.

Should parents and students have free choice when it comes to public schools? One would think yes, as a parent we have the right to choose what school is right for our child. Due to the fact every child is different and learns differently it would be in the child’s best interest to choose what school would be the best fit. However if everyone was able to choose their own school then what would happen to the schools that do not have the higher test scores. Something that should be considered is if the schools with the lower test scores and lower attendance those schools might be subject to close, thus never having a fair chance to improve their scores. Along with school choice comes the possibility of over crowding in the schools. As it is today over crowding in the classroom is a problem. I do feel that parents and students should have some say as to school they want their child to attend but how much of a say I’m not sure what is realistic.

The boy crisis in education: As a teacher it is our job to teach students. It should not matter what to student’s gender is or color of their skin. However there are many feminist teachers in our school today who believe it is their personal obligation to pay more attention to the girl students rather than the boys. I completely disagree with the feminist theory. Students are students in any shape or form. It is not only unfortunate but true that boys are being looked over. I have seen first hand how many teachers feel that boys should act like the girls. They should sit nicely in their chairs and pay attention. Not all girls are paying attention in the classroom a lot of them are writing notes and looking at the boys. Sure maybe they are quieter but that does not mean they are listening. I think that as a teacher it is our job to treat and teach all of our students equally regardless of gender or race.

In societies’ current state, I believe that Critical Pedagogy, as well as Liberal and Conservative views all have merit. When I was contemplating the question this Blog entry asks us to answer, I had to read and re-read the descriptions of the three candidates being reviewed. I could not come to a definite conclusion as to why one would be the most or least convincing, although I can see parts of each that may be more or less convincing that the others. I think that like the other philosophies we have discussed in class, it is possible to take aspects from each of them and mold them into one, creating a custom philosophy that works well in the setting you are in.

First of all, I believe that Critical Pedagogy is a fantastically radical idea that America is just not ready for. I think that if all teachers upheld the same belief system as Peter McLaren, that the world would not be a worse place, just drastically different. Many would benefit from McLaren’s “de-schooling” in some ways, but I firmly believe they would lose out in others. Although part of McLaren’s philosophy is to force his ideals on others (thus gathering strength behind the movement), I don’t foresee that enough individuals will pull together to support his cause. If enough educators did embrace his outlook, I believe it is possible that the public school system that we know it could be overthrown. However, I don’t see that happening in the near future.

As far as the Liberal view is concerned, I think that if the USA is in fact going to compete against (basically) the rest of the world, then the schools do need to make the curriculum more intense. Whether I agree with the ideal or not, my statement is still true. I have a dream that one day the world will have truly embodied Globalization, and there will be no need to compete. Every area of the world can offer something unique, and I think it would be incredible for us to be able to all work together. However, I don’t see this happening any time in the near future, just as I don’t see Peter McLaren and his minions taking over.

In addition to Critical Pedagogy and Liberalism, I believe that the Conservative view does carry some weight in this subject. I think that if schools were run like businesses (in the sense that they had to compete for students), that the quality of education would greatly improve. The news special we watched in class showed some amazing changes being made –without extra money. The one school they focused on where the Principal went to each classroom and gave out rewards was doing much better than other schools in the area, and they were spending less money per student. The teachers seemed inspired, which in turn inspired the students-- making the situation more conducive to learning. Everyone wins!

As stated in my opening paragraph, I think that it is entirely possible to combine parts of different philosophies, and adapt them to your (and / or your students) needs. If teachers could combine McLaren’s strong will to be a Change Agent, the competitive factor of the Liberal view, and the “school as a business” factor of the Conservative view, I think that America’s public school system would be a better place for students and teachers alike.

These stories are very different and extreme. I don’t believe that any one method by itself could benefit our students. However, in combination they might work.

McLaren’s approach is very radical and extreme. This might not be for everyone, however, he does have a point when he talks about “de-schooling” and the “change agents”. People who dismiss this theory do so because they have not experienced the unfairness McLaren writes about. Stossel, in contrast, views our schools and students as stupid. This is very harsh and unnecessary. We all know that this statement is not accurate. But, be that as it may, our schools do have to change the way they handle certain issues. Finally, Daggett, argues that because of legislation (No Child Left Behind) our schools are more like businesses. Because of NCLB many students fall through the cracks and some can’t even read. This is extremely sad because, above all, the educators in our school systems should be responsible for teaching their students. The main purpose of any school should be to teach. And yet, it’s all about numbers.

I strongly agree that the American schools need an extreme makeover. But to say , according to John Stossel, that we have “stupid schools” which produce “stupid students” is a little harsh. I usually agree with Stossel but not on this topic. Schools need improvements and that’s what NCLB was supposed to achieve. Nothing is perfect, NCLB is a great idea but not realistic. No Child Left Behind came out of the idea of civil rights for all students and to provide economic competence in a world of money hungry people. I agree with Daggett in that NCLB was created to balance academic excellence and academic equality. And to Stossel, WHO CARES ABOUT BELGIUM?!

Education is not a competition with other countries; I believe that it is there to help our students learn good skills benefiting them for a better future. All students need to have equal opportunities in schools. Our schools need to focus more in what students are learning and if they are learning.

Mclaren’s point of view is a little bit drastic, but it has a good point that student need to be treated equally, same opportunities, not to set them aside because they are poor. If we don’t help these children they will fail. It is not only about the money; it is to encourage the students to go to school, to keep on moving forward.

I don’t think schools need billions of dollars to teach a student, what we need is well prepared teachers, a good curriculum and patience. It is good to have unions to help teachers, as workers we need to have good place to work. We need to keep in mind that our role in society especially for our children is to teach them to be prepared for what can came next. In Mexico, I remember teachers did not have unions, the only help they had was The Secretaria de Educasion. I remember that one day as student, all the high schools (preparatorias) went into the streets to raise our voice to the Secretaria de Educasion members that teachers deserved to get a better pay, and it was the only way to help them. No matter what these teachers always helped us even if they didn’t get paid enough. Dedication, effort and patience is what makes a good teacher, that’s what I saw from my teachers, and I thank them for that.

I don’t think students from this country are stupid, I believe that they are not being encouraged enough to be kept in school. It is better for parents to have an opportunity to choose the school, but it seems better to help unproductive schools have better study plans that help students. Education is not a competition between schools. We need to help each other instead of fighting to see which school is better. It sounds more like; two people that sell shoes at the swap meet selling the shoes at the least possible amount of money they can in order to sell more. Sorry but our children are not shoes, they are not objects, they are humans that need to be understood, and need to be encouraged to succeed in society.

From the video that I saw and what I learn from lectures, I came to the conclusion that we need to apply a little bit of each of the three philosophies. We need to change our system of education. I know we can do better if we work together and harder.

I disagree with Stossel, American students are Not “stupid”, nor are American schools “stupid”.
And he should not compare American schools with schools in Belgian. I feel that we as Americans might have some problems with the school systems, and the educational society, BUT we do have the knowledge to teach and learn. The American public education may be in crisis, but we are doing everything we can not to le it affect the students. I feel that it is the teacher’s / educators responsibility to make sure the students are getting the right education, and if they are or if they aren’t, that does not make the students, or the schools “stupid”. I believe it’s about working together, and every one comprehending where we stand in the education