Group items tagged

"For the African-American community there was a huge amount of pressure against it, because in America, the grandparents of today's home-schooled children fought for desegregation of schools.They thought, 'The public schools are going to save us.'" This really made me think about what the public school system has become, and how far removed it seems from the original public schools. The article also mentions teachers teaching to the test and constantly trying to medicate children, which is leading so far away from school being an environment where children want to be. I think that the article does a nice job of leaving the underlying message that home schooling is somewhat an alternative to public school because it puts desire and dedication back into education, which to me is extremely sad. Unfortunately, I think that until Public Schools begin to realize that education needs to leave room for growth, not just a syllabus designed for good test scores, the rate of homeschooling will keep rising.

In some cases, I believe home schooling takes away from a student's overall education experience. In a home school setting, students lose the sort of implicit curriculum that is learned in the classroom. Additionally, students lose the interaction with others on a daily basis in the classroom setting when they are home schooled. This family even recognizes that their student "misses the 'madness' of the classroom." Although, in the case of this family, home schooling still seems to be the perfect fit. Because of no other options for a better quality school than the one her son was at, and the fact that he was "losing his love for learning," home schooling was the obvious choice. The standing of today's public schools is unfortunate. NHERI director Dr Brian Ray claimed the following: "The failings of public schools have caused all of us, whether we are white or black, to come up with creative ideas about how we can educate children." It is sad to think that some school systems are so bad that parents believe they or online coursework from home is a better learning option for their developing student.

I agree with Amanda. There are definitely aspects of homeschooling that I believe are not beneficial. These negative aspects are in the implicit curriculum. Socialization is an important part of growing up and learning. Many job require you to be able to work well with others. The article mentions home-schooling co-operatives. These "[help] break the social isolation critics of home schooling often warn about." These co-operatives can minimize some of the lost social interaction, but not all. However, "about two million, or 4%, of American children are home-schooled." This is really a limited number so the socialization concern is not too great. Overall, I think it is wonderful that homeschooling is not just a "white" thing anymore. If the parents can make it work, I see no reason why the children should not at least be exposed to this option. I would rather see improvements in the school but since that it not going to happen overnight, I think this is a decent alternative in the mean time, especially it the option is not discriminatory by race.

This article is somewhat depressing. For instance, the statement, "Joyce Burges believes the day could soon be approaching when the local home-schooling co-operative, run by a group of committed parents, could be a real alternative to the public school, for children of all ages and ethnicities" is completely unethical. I do not agree with the homeschooling idea. I agree with Amanda that homeschooling takes away from students overall education. Students need to be with other students, learning in that setting. I think it is very upsetting to think that students could get a better education at home. For this particular family, it is sad there is no other option. I think that our society needs to work on school system, the overall education and the teachers in order to help our students in the long run.

To be honest, I am not a proponent of home schools. I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone who has been or appreciates the institution, I just see it as unnatural and stifling for a child. I believe that children should constantly be around other children and that schools provide this for them. I think that classical schooling can help to increase awareness of those around you, appreciate diversity of race, gender, appearance, and abilities, and it can increase improvement in the individual as they are in a setting with there peers and trying to perform better to keep up. My opinions aside, I found the article specifically interesting when it discussed the differences in reasoning that white families home school and that black families do. White families apparently try to avoid the topics of sex education and darwinism being presented to their children in a method which they do not agree with. Blacks, on the other hand, seem to be aiming to support the "love of learning" and maintain cultural pride and roots.

According to the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), "about two million or 4% of American children are home-schooled." Home-schooling has been traditionally dominated by white Christian families in the rural south, but recently more black families have started home-schooling their children. "For the African-American community there was a huge amount of pressure against it, because in America, the grandparents of today's home-schooled children fought for desegregation of schools. They thought, 'The public schools are going to save us,'" says Dr. Brian Ray. According to a 2008 study by the Schott Foundation, "Over the last 25 years, the social, educational and economic outcomes for black males have been more systematically devastating than the outcomes for any other racial or ethnic group or gender." More African American families have started home-schooling in hopes of increasing their child's love for learning. Families also believe that classrooms are more favorable for girls. Another reason is to emphasis more focus on African American culture. Home-schooling does not work for all children and parents. "Many children who are home-schooled in their early years return to the class room when they reach secondary school age." I personally am not a fan of home-schooling, for I feel that children need to be able to develop relationships with other students and teachers. Also, through classroom education, students receive both the explicit and implicit curriculum.

Shame of the Nation presents many examples of the sad fact that many New York schools are segregated by race and class, and how students are negatively affected by this. While this Pennsylvania study is ridiculous, it might be interesting to spotlight student achievement if emphasis was placed on segregating genders, rather than focusing on racial differences. The following quote presents an interesting idea about single-gender classrooms: "A national study from UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies claims to show that girls from single-sex schools have an edge over their co-ed peers. 'Single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science,' the 2008 study said." However, segregating seems ineffective all together, because society is not segregated by gender once students reach the real world in adulthood. Moreover, it is important for the development of males to grow and mature with the presence of female peers.

This article was extremely interesting and I could see how segregation could really benefit the students, as long as it is done in a minimal way. A huge issue in the education system is the clash of cultures between teachers and students. Many teachers are white; middle-class women while the students come from all sorts of backgrounds. Therefore, I can see how, "Educators immediately noticed strong bonds being formed between all students and mentor teachers." It is much easier for students to relate to a teacher/mentor that is a lot like them. Our schools today center around a very white, "Christian" curriculum and this may not be the best learning style for minority students. With this said, I think "rolling the clock back to the time before Brown vs. the Board of Education," is not the answer. Segregating students for, "six minutes each day and 20 minutes twice a month," though could help solve the clash of cultures crisis. It is interesting to note the national study from the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information studies, which claims that, "girls from single-sex schools have an edge over their co-ed peers." It is especially interesting that the girls became more confident in areas related to math and science. In a typical co-ed classroom girls may get discouraged since boys usually pick up math and science with more ease. The same could be true with minority groups; sometimes they might be discouraged with the "whiteness" of the curriculum. I think this idea of "segregation" as long as it is minimal could produce results.

I found the idea behind the article quite surprising. At the end of the article it states that this school might be on the right track because of the single-sex research that is mentioned in the two previous posts. I do not think this is a remotely similar comparison. Single sex schools actually exist. Multiple races can be in the same sex school. The idea of segregating by race is not acceptable. This can have so many negative repercussions that it is not worth the risk. There are many things I think the article should have elaborated on because the program was not described that well. This was one of them: "They plan to replace the policy with a 'neighborhood schools system' that critics say will establish real segregation." I wanted to see more information on this because it was wondering how it would be done. Separating by zones (which are primarily determined by SES) would be interesting and not necessarily race discrimination. Poor white people and poor black people would live in the same area so it would not be completely separated by race. However, even this form of separation may make poor students feel inferior and like they will never go anywhere in life because of their SES. I do not think that separation is a good idea; however, I am interested to know the outcome of this experiment.

The article states that, "Educators immediately noticed strong bonds being formed between all students and mentor teachers." This initially sounds positive, however, it also sounds that as the individual groups grow closer, the bonds of the class as a whole may grow weaker as their differences are focused on, instead of their similarities. I understand that the administrators of the school are experimenting with the implementation of recently supported research, but as briefly mentioned in the article, I think they are playing with the fine line that separates individuals who can handle segregation for academic purposes and individuals who will take this application of segregating students to an inappropriate level.

This article was shocking to me. I think it's always good to look for ways to help students achieve more in school but I don't think it should be separated by race. It might be a good idea to separate students according to gender, or interests, but separating children by race is taking a step in the wrong direction. I think that education should be color blind, I don't think race should be considered in any decisions and I think everyone should have the same opportunities. I know that the intentions behind this experiment are good, but I don't think this will help the students in the long run. I think that this might encourage unconscious prejudice.

This article experiments with segregating high school students by gender, race, and language to see if this separation improves academic success. I feel that this article is absurd and experiments like this should not even be considered for they are unconstitutional. I agree that studies comparing the academic success of single-sex education verses co-ed education can be conducted, for single-sex schools exist. However, separating students based on race is wrong. In the real world, a person will always be exposed to others of differing races, so they need to learn to coexist and work together.

While reading this article I could definitely see how separation could be beneficial to students, for it could create a comfort in schools that previously was not there. The quote "single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science" made me think about how race could also be like that. If certain races are feeling inferior to another, separation could allow the students to work better. However, the problem I see with it is that if races are separated into another school, then most likely problems of achievement will still occur and there will be a gap of achievement in the school whether it is all black or white or gender specific. I do not really think that this should be done formally, a lot of times cliques are formed in schools, and I think that is quite enough separation. I think that if the gaps were filled, not dwelt upon, and there was no emphasis on race or gender mattering in school, there would be no one even talking about how one race is different, let alone how they can achieve better.

This article describes a school in Pennsylvania that tried to decrease the separation of students by race, gender, and language, so the administrators decided to create a purpose and goal in the classroom to target only African-American students. This experiment started problems with parents, NAACP members, and educators. I believe this is completely biased to the entire school because if the administrators wanted to truly close the separation of race, gender, and language at the school, the administrators should had focus on all races and cultures. I chose a quote from our readings that correlates with this article "Educators often failed to see that many problems children faced in school were sociological and economic in character and were, in C. Wright Mills's term, "public issues" rather than "personal troubles." from The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education by David B. Tyack (page 181).

After reading this article, I can see how segregation could improve student performance. The article stated that students were place in the classroom with a strong academic role model. I believe that this can improve student performance because students may find this academic role model more relatable or someone who's level of success they would like to reach. Students me also so that the role model understands them better than their teachers and can give them guidance for educational success. A quote in the article that supports this is, "Single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science."

The junior class at McCaskey East is voluntarily segregated by the students, who organize themselves "by gender, race and/or language," said school spokeswoman Kelly Burkholder. Segregating students will not solve problems with low test scores. Research shows that students from different races, ethnicities, and genders actually score better on tests when they are integrated in the same classroom. Regardless of what level students are on it is best for them to learn in the same classroom as their peers. Research says that if you pair a student who makes good grades with one that makes poor grades both students will do well. The student with higher grades will have practice recalling information and the student with lower grades will have the benefit of working with someone who is doing well in class.

As great as this article likes to make this "segregation" sound, there is NO ethical way of practicing this separation. I do believe that all races need to see someone that looks like them doing well in life, but this may be a bit overboard. If they can find a way to make this work then kudos, but this is a touchy subject. There needs to be more proof that it is effective, if not then these studies should stop before it gets carried away.

This idea of modern segregation is appalling. Schools need to focus of the fact that race is a social construct in which we created and can diminish. The article talks about statistics and outcomes but forget that our social lens that is creating these outcomes. Maybe we should be looking at ways to improve testing and teaching methods that will help bridge the gap between races and gender instead of ways to reinforce them. I wonder if any civil right groups have jumped on this since last year.

I really thought this article was powerful in the face that many people would not believe in this. I thought it was interesting when they stated that they believe "that shows grouping black students by gender with a strong role model can help boost their academic achievement and self esteem." I agree with Cassandra in the fact that they are not focusing on what is really important. I personally do not agree with this article or this idea.

When reading this article, I honestly felt like I was going back in time. The fact that the high school was going to be segregated shocked me. I think that the means of this experiment originally meant well, but not everyone saw it that way. When it stated that "the principal defended it", I felt like the school would continue to conduct their experiment as long as possible.

"A national study from UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies claims to show that girls from single-sex schools have an edge over their co-ed peers. Single-sex education appears to produce favorable outcomes for female students, especially in terms of their confidence, engagement and aspirations, most notably in areas related to math and science," the 2008 study said. I believe this statement can possibly be truer as it relates to college level education. Just based on my experiences in public school there were always boys that were smarter than girls but felt as though they couldn't perform to their highest achievement because they were concerned with how they might be perceived by their peers. Also in inner city schools it is evident that the drop-out rates of males are extremely high, leaving room for more female competitiveness.

It is an unfortunate, yet undeniable fact that money opens doors to opportunities. Because of the way schools are funded through property taxes, schools in higher income areas are automatically going to be embellished more so than schools receiving less funds. This fact is obvious in the Oprah video presented in the beginning of the course. However, money isn't the sole factor in a student's success. This is evident in the following excerpt: "'Early life conditions and how children are stimulated play a very important role,' he said. 'The danger is we will revert back to the mindset of the war on poverty, when poverty was just a matter of income, and giving families more would improve the prospects of their children. If people conclude that, it's a mistake.'" It is imperative for parents to positively influence their students from early on in their school careers so that they may overcome obstacles such as little funding.

I was so glad to hear that, "the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades," but at the same time it is unfortunate to hear that, "the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." Race is merely a construct; therefore I hope Americans begin to realize that success does not lie in which race you come from. Now it seems that, "we have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race." The question is what can we do about this? I think we need to regain our middle class. Nowadays it seems that people are either upper or lower class. We see, "that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children's schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources." There needs to be a middle ground in which all students are able to have access to these additional resources. It is quite alarming to know that, "by the time high-income children start school, they have spent about 400 hours more than poor children in literacy activities." More focus needs to be put on this issue because if not the gap between the rich and poor will continue to grow, making it more and more difficult to ever resolve.

Sean Reardon was quoted in the article saying, "We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race." Although this has truth to it, I think money has always been a motivation, even if it was overshadowed by race at one point. However, the statistic that it has grown 40% since the 60s is shocking. Money drives the American economy. It is a sad unfortunate truth. The American dream to come here from nothing and make something of yourself is extremely difficult in today's American society. "One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children." I agree with this. Wealthy parents have more time and effort to put into their children. This does not make lower SES parents bad parents by any stretch. However, the lower SES parents are probably single-parent homes. These parents might have to work more than one job in order to cloth and feed their child. The parent is doing the best they can but they do not have the monetary means to provide above and beyond for their child.

In this article, the New York Times is quoted saying "One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children's schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources." I think this is very true in our society today. I think this article is a perfect description. At my high school, this was truly the case. The higher end families children received the best grades and always seem to do the best in school. I agree with this quote that it comes from how the wealthy parents spend more time with their children, helping them become who they want to become. Wealthier parents seem to push their children more than low-income parents do. In my personal experience, the low-income parents don't always know how to push their children and help them through school because they were never taught themselves.

The fact that, "the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period" only surprised me when it was being compared to race. I have personally heard many times that there is an achievement gap between races, yet never read about so much evidence supporting a larger gap between SES. I agree with the section of the article that talks about parents that have excess money investing in their children with extracurricular activities and services. It makes sense that a child with access to tutors, supplemental stimulation of the brain, and a well rounded up-bringing would have an advantage academically. This relates to the point that the main concern for many of these adolescent students is doing well in school to please their parents, rather than making money to help their parents pay bills. A personal example of this came to my mind while reading this article. When I was younger, my mom used to make my siblings and I help with chores on the weekends, but if we had a lot of homework, projects, or extracurricular activities during the week days my mom wouldn't make us do our chores so we would have time to finish everything else. My mom was fortunate to be able to stay home during that period of time while my dad made enough for both of them. Because she had the time and energy to do the housework, she was able to let us concentrate on schoolwork and activities instead of helping her. This lead to me being able to use my time to take on classes with a larger work load and spend extra time making sure I was successful in school since my mom would continually say, "right now, doing well in school is your job". Yes, the statistics from the article were shocking when I first read them; however, I can see reasons for them that aren't as unexpected. The data has been presented; what we need to focus on now is how to fix this.

I found this quote interesting because I never really noticed that more affluent children do better in school. At first, I thought that intelligence is not connected to wealth but then realized that if a student is not necessarily the smartest student in the classroom, more affluent families have the money and resources to push their child academically. More affluent families have the money for tutors, SAT prep courses, and programs that can help their child's development. I think that there should be more programs that are free to all students that can help all students succeed. A child's success should not depend on how much money his/her family has.

Education was once thought to equalize opportunities between rich and poor students. Public education was designed to increase the chances for success among the less fortunate. However, recently researchers have found that the gap between rich and poor has grown substantially. The recession may be responsible for the widened gap. Also, it is predicted that wealthy parents invest more time and money into their children. Excessive money may be spent on tutors, music lessons, sports, and overall involvement in school. According to a study by Sabino Kornrich and Frank F. Furstenberg, "Americans at the upper end of the income spectrum were spending five times as much per child as low-income families. By 2007 that gap had grown to nine to one; spending by upper-income families more than doubles, while spending by low-income families grew by 20 percent." Another reason for this gap may be due to the amount of time spent exposed to literacy activities. According to Meredith Phillips, "Affluent children spend 1,300 more hours than low-income children before age 6 in places other than their homes, their day care centers, or schools." It is unfortunate that money opens the doors to opportunities. Because schools are funded by property taxes, schools in higher income areas are going to have better programs and more opportunities for their students. Although money does not solely determine a student's future success it does make it easier to pursue goals because of exposure to academic opportunities.

While reading the article the fact that "by the time high-income children start school, they have spent about 400 hours more than poor children in literacy activities" really surprised and upset me. That time spent with reading is 400 hours of extra practice that low income students don't get, which leads me to believe now more than ever schools should offer more reading practices before and after school, which would bring the community together and help out to bridge the gap between rich and poor. That was why I was glad to read that "The connection between income inequality among parents and the social mobility of their children has been a focus of President Obama as well as some of the Republican presidential candidates." The fact that political figures are taking action with this problem leaves me with hope that it become a known problem, which can be fixed.

This article discuss the achievement gap in affluent and poor students. That students are being treated differently based on their parent's income. This is harmful because it can cause problems for all students. One of the quotes from our class readings remind me of this article, "even worse, the new black classes provided white school officials with a handy excuse for "doing little or nothing" to alter the so-called regular curriculum, as another scholar warned" from Black Activism, White Resistance, and Multiculturalism by Jonathan Zimmerman (page 109). Even though the quote and the article are quite different since predominately the affluent families are Caucasian and the poor families are mostly African-American this quote can relate to the fact that this type of division of classes can be destructive.

I was delighted to read in the article that the racial achievement gap is lower than ever before. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in terms of family income. While reading, the first reason that popped into my head that could explain this was families of higher income being able to afford the best educational opportunities for their children. As stated in the  article, "One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents and that's more time and money than ever before in their children… " Because these parents can afford to make these types of investments, their child is more likely to have a more well-rounded educational experience and more opportunity to engage in extracurricular activities. 

"One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children's schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources." This definitely is a big factor contributing between the achievement of kids from poorer and richer backgrounds. Another factor is that property taxes determine how much money schools get. If a child lives in a poor neighborhood and goes to the local school they are at a diadvantage. Children in richers areas that have better schools hire more teachers with masters and doctorate degrees and have better libraries, more computers, and after school activities. If property taxes were not a factor in a school funding, poor students would have the same resources as richer students.

"When the economy recovers, you'll still see all these problems persisting for reasons that have nothing to do with money and everything to do with culture," In my opinion it is also the subject of parenting. Yes, higher income families can provide their children with better resources and extra curricular activities, but that does not stop certain "poor" students from excelling, especially if the parents push them. Unfortunately, lower income families don't always support education due to the financial situation. These students may have to work and don't have the time to do extra things outside of the home.

I have been thinking a lot lately on ways to change the school system for the better. Out teacher suggested the idea of finding a different way to pay for public schools than property tax. This would give students a more equal opportunity than social class creates. Our current system places the students in a specific environment to fail and tell them hard work will get them out when in all reality the class you are in seems to be a determining factor in America life within the last few years. I believe focusing on the allocation of resources with help bridge the gap between class and education.

"Researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." The quote from this article points out a good fact that the gap is shying away from it being a racial issue to a financial issue. However, with that still comes the idea of which races fit into those categories of who is rich and who is poor. It is still evident that even though society doesn't want to shine light on the idea that racism still exists in today's society. Racism doesn't necessarily have to be about color even though it has a factor in the achievement gap. For instance, the schools in inner-city neighborhoods are over-crowded and the resources for adequate achievement don't exist. However, the same cannot be said for students in suburban neighborhoods, where classes don't exceed more than 25 students and books are available for every student. Another quote that rings true for me from the articles says, "when the economy recovers, you'll still see all these problems persisting for reasons that have nothing to do with money and everything to do with culture." Every season has its reason (in my opinion an excuse) as to why achievement gaps exist.

From the article, "the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period". When taking that into consideration, I think that there are certain factors that are contributing to the gap between success and income level, not just the mere fact that some parents cannot afford to send their children to private school. Parents who are at the lower income levels cannot afford to provide supplemental materials for their children, so what they learn in public school could be the only type of education they receive. However, it can also be up to the child to want to be in a better position than their parents because they have seen what they go through firsthand, which could potentially spur their desire for a higher level of success. Although this theory is possible, it is not likely that the children of parents in lower income levels will move up. In fact, only about 10% of children will move up in a social class higher than what their parents are.

"Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." Americans say they believe in children getting equal opportunities for education, but not enough is being done about it. In Florida, the public school funding system just isn't working, and this quotes explains why. Children of the same or similar academic achievement should be receiving the same quality of education. If that is not the case, which it isn't, then a new method of funding should be made. We should be working to narrow the gap between rich and poor students, not merely watching it grow.

"Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period." Americans say they believe in children getting equal opportunities for education, but not enough is being done about it. In Florida, the public school funding system just isn't working, and this quotes explains why. Children of the same or similar academic achievement should be receiving the same quality of education. If that is not the case, which it isn't, then a new method of funding should be made. We should be working to narrow the gap between rich and poor students, not merely watching it grow.

This is an issue that I am very concerned with, and I have gone as far as considering participating in Teach For America to help solve this problem and eliminate the education gap. What I do like about this article is something that is buried in the middle of it and could be easily overlooked. It says "now catching the attention of a broader audience, in part because income inequality has been a central theme this election season." It then goes on to say "focus of President Obama as well as some of the Republican presidential candidates." Although so far this is all talk and no action, I feel like the first step in changing this movement is spreading awareness of the problem and generating interest in a solution. I am glad that this is an issue that is being talked about and openly discusses, because that means we are at least one step closer on the road to solving the problem. I have high hopes that if Americans make it an important issue and make that fact known to our law makers, then we will eventually see change and progress in the system to help solve this problem.

I found this quote interesting: "The idea that education can be 'selfish' - a belief largely alien among the upper-middle class - is one poor students often confront, even if it remains unspoken." I think the quote generalizes a bit and, interpreted by a particularly sensitive person, could be seen as trying to induce guilt on the part of rich people (though their guilt MIGHT say something about their unacknowledged privilege). However, I can see that poor students would not want to burden their families by pursuing higher education and thus they get stuck in the cogs of poverty. To close the gap between high and low income students, I don't think we need the privileged to feel guilty for what they have or the underprivileged to feel guilty in asking for easier access to education. Maybe this is an obvious question, but why is college so expensive, anyway? What would really happen if colleges lowered tuition so higher education was actually attainable for a broader group of people? Money isn't the whole issue in why people aren't going to college, but the only argument I've heard in favor of high tuition have been to benefit the already-rich and educated.

In response to Lisa: I definitely understand the meaning of the quote you chose and the inherent guilt that any student might feel because of the high cost of higher education. Building on your point about lowering college tuition, it seems that this would be an ideal goal in a society acknowledging, more and more, the growing need for a degree in the competitive global economy. If America wants to remain competitive, we must produce students capable of handling the issues of today. When more and more jobs require a college education, it seems logical that the necessary training would be more readily accessible, to all groups. Perhaps it is simply the static nature of conflicting politics that prevents change. Or, does the lack of change reflect an attempt to protect the already established class privileges, despite all of the discourse revolving around closing these gaps?

Lisa, I liked that quote when I read the article too. Its very interesting and makes you think. It is true that this remains unspoken and I never thought of education as selfish but when I think about it, it can definitely be seen as such.

Totally agree, Nadia. I don't think we're limited to 4-year liberal arts degrees, either... Vocational/trade schools prepare their students for jobs in the real world too, just in a different way. I'm thinking about that video we watched with the guy who got paid by his company to go to a trade school - that's seriously the best of both worlds! One of my professors says that more than half of the students at UF shouldn't be here because they don't want to be, they weren't wired to study liberal arts. Even though it sounds harsh, I can think of at least a few of my friends who are miserable because they think the only way they'll be happy is to be here and to get this part of their lives over with so they can start getting paid. I'm starting to go off on a tangent here, but I wonder if high school students receive more career counseling, maybe they would actually think about which jobs would give them life satisfaction and not just a 401K... Vocational college could be a great option, but we don't hear about them much! There may be some negative stigma attached to trade schools that make them seem blue collar in a white collar society, and that goes into what you mentioned about the politics of class privilege.

Lisa Lee, In response to your last response, I'm not sure if I understand fully what your professor said. I understand that you're trying to say that students should not be here because they don't want to be, but I don't understand why being wired to study liberal arts would be a requirement for attending a college. I agree that high school students should receive more career counseling but for the most part ( I know my career counselor in high school) did not have that large of an impact on my current professional pursuits. By the time students come to college, they change their minds about what they want to do at least four or five times. Also, often what drives students to go for the 401K is because of their family situation. Whether we would like to be in a financially better position than our parents or our parents are pushing us into that desk job, they often have the largest influence on our initial thoughts of our careers. While vocational college has its merits, I think the main issue with that is that jobs that come from a vocational school are usually less respected and paid less than 4-year college jobs, as you said. Having poor students go into vocational colleges to get less well paid jobs just continues the cycle. I think we should lower tuition though. I honestly don't see why it costs so much.

Krystal, what I got from my professor was that there's a power structure in place that says you must go to a 4-year liberal arts college, you need that "well-rounded" education to be "qualified" for the job market (and thus achieve a certain status in society). But does an electrical engineer need to have 9 credit hours of humanities to be a good engineer? In that way, some professions shouldn't require students to be in a liberal arts program - thus, they "shouldn't be there." From a functionalist/conflict perspective (not saying it's the right perspective, just one way to look at it), those students in poverty are being denied access to higher paying, higher status jobs because they can't afford this type of liberal arts instruction. I don't know how salaries are determined, but I agree that jobs obtained through vocational schools shouldn't be stigmatized in addition to tuition being lowered at liberal arts colleges. About the career counseling, I was just wondering if high school students were more open to vocational schools, they'd take advantage of them. Sure, a student who wants a liberal arts education should be able to receive one and it's a problem that they can't. I'm not suggesting that vocational schools are the second rung, leftover alternatives where we can hide our inner city students, either. But for those students in poverty who give up altogether and don't pursue ANY higher education at all because of the cost, having guidance counselors who suggest this as an option might be helpful - assuming, of course, that they have guidance counselors in the first place.

"Neighborhoods have grown more segregated by class, leaving lower-income students increasingly concentrated in lower-quality schools. And even after accounting for financial aid, the costs of attending a public university have risen 60 percent in the past two decades" Schools get funded through property taxes and because of this low income communities get less money to distribute to local schools as compared to higher income communities with lots of home owners. More home owners leads to more property taxes which gets schools in high income communities more money to contribute to better qualified teachers, better technology, nicer school facilities, etc. The first step to closing the gap between high low income students is allowing schools to provide the same opportunities to all students. This can be done if all schools receive the same amount of money to contribute to student's education. Rather than funding money from property taxes directly to local schools, local governments should collect the money and distribute it evenly among schools in high and low income communities. This way all schools could afford to provide the same learning tools for all students.

In the article, I found the following quote to be very interesting: "With school success and earning prospects ever more entwined, the consequences carry far: education, a force meant to erode class barriers, appears to be fortifying them." I chose this quote because its saddening to see that education, typically a path that people choose to overcome low economic status, is not available for those students who are academically qualified. Low-income students already have to endure enough obstacles in order to reach a point where they are ready for college studies. By not being able to attend school or be successful in school, these students will be the ones taking the low income jobs. This is just a continuation of the widening of the gap between high and low income students. I believe that Emory's financial aid program is a beginning step to minimizing the income gap. If a student's family made less than $50K/ year, then Emory would turn some of the student's loans into grants. Also, there could be a highly recommended push for low-income students to apply for work-study programs. These programs are usually not too strenuous and are flexible to student's schedule. Overall, I do agree with the previous posts that college tuition needs to be decreased drastically. I was speaking with a friend of mine about this topic and he asked me why couldn't college be free like K-12 schooling. I didn't really know how to respond besides "Oh that's not going to happen." I did not know any legitimate reason as to why some college programs could not do this. It just seemed unrealistic for colleges to do this. Any thoughts on this question?

Its hard to say if it was their low socioeconomic status that led them to not graduate or pass some courses in 4 years, or if it was their social group and the people that surrounded themselves. "schools may have also changed in ways that make parental income and education more important". Education could be reformed in public education by making public schools fair and even for all parents. Taking exams like SAT which determine admissions into colleges, it is important to get a good score. Those who can afford the tutors and prep classes will have a better chance of getting in. I think that there has to be other ways to do this and money should not have to be related to achievement.

"It's becoming increasingly unlikely that a low-income student, no matter how intrinsically bright, moves up the socioeconomic ladder," said Sean Reardon, a sociologist at Stanford. "What we're talking about is a threat to the American dream." This quote really stood out to me because it really shows the issues that we are seeing with higher education. These poor, first generation students are going to colleges that they can't afford, not knowing how the process works and how to deal with it. Without any sort of support system, they are setting themselves up for failure. In order to close the gap between high and low income students, schooling should start by being more affordable. Loans and grants should not be as difficult to obtain, and shouldn't be falsified like in this article. I also think that there should be more work-study programs for those students who have to pay their own way through college. There should also be more involvement at the high school level. Guidance counselor's need to be more helpful in preparing students for college. Especially if they are first generation college students, these kids have no idea how college works and that's not really something that you can learn without any help. In this article, one of the professors tried to reach out to the girl, which is awesome, but she wasn't very responsive and I'm concerned that would be the response of most kids who don't know what they're doing and end up failing. No one wants to admit that they failed so it's easier to just ignore it.

"Weekends and summers were devoted to a college-readiness program, where her best friends, Melissa O'Neal and Bianca Gonzalez, shared her drive to "get off the island" - escape the prospect of dead-end lives in luckless Galveston. Melissa, an eighth-grade valedictorian, seethed over her mother's boyfriends and drinking, and Bianca's bubbly innocence hid the trauma of her father's death. They stuck together so much that a tutor called them the "triplets." " This article brought up a lot of good points and had great example stories. This quote stuck out to me because of the influence peers and friend groups can have on an individual. Families have a huge influence on one's well being and their ability to excel in education. They also can be supportive or detrimental. Not that I am saying it is all the families fault if a student fails, but there is a strong influence. Families do the best they can and some circumstances are challenging ,like finances or trauma within a household. No matter what, a family's situations will effect someone, especially the children. But, there is an alternative when people thing in terms of support. Friend groups can be extremely influential. In my experience, this is what was where my sister and I found the most support, specifically in scholastic areas. I can relate to the "triplets' mentioned in this article. I had friends like that. Through all the chaos of one's home front, there can be outside support that can undesirably beneficial. Although the girls did not excel the way I hope hoped they would, this still brings up a good point. Another good point was the pressure of needed finances as adults and outside influences. Now as far as education reform. I see a lot of hope and promise in after school programs. An example of this working in a beneficial way is when a student is suppose to go home alone when the parent or parent is still at work. An option of just staying at school and working on homework would be

Alexa- That quote stood out to me as well. It is an unfortunate aspect of our economic system, since cost is calculated in relation to the economic condition of the society as a whole, while the individuals are expected to satisfy this generalized goal independently. In other words, what a person must pay is dictated by the wealth of people that have nothing to do with that person, while the individual is left to rely only on his/her resources to pay that cost. It is contradictory to say that an individual has no right to another one's resources, while the resources of all others creates what is demanded of that specific individual.

Lisa- That quote stood out to me because some of the friends I graduated high school with didn't attend college because they felt it would be inconsiderate to do so. When I asked a particular friend why he wasn't applying to colleges, he simply said "I couldn't do that to my dad". It was a response that really expanded my view of education, because I hadn't ever thought of the decision to educate oneself as one which negatively affects the family of the individual.

Keri- This quote stood out to me because it was shocking. I think people underestimate privilege all the time. We can't influence the family we are born into, the environment we live in, or the financial situation our caregivers are in. It would be easier if we were all dealt the same hand of cards but it's more complicated than that. These girls were not born into privileged families and the fact that these girls needed to travel out of their town because of its suppressing environment shows this lack or privilege. Future educators should work on ways to level the playing field so all students have an equal opportunity to exceed in their education.

Lisa-- I like this quote. I remember speaking about this during class discussion one day. Basically, it's the idea that for the wealthy or privileged there is no reason to question the education system as it today. Why would they question something that has worked for them so far?

Yes, I agree Lisa. I do not think there is anything positive that can come from the two extreme classes feeling any sense of guilt for their class. The solution has to come out of accepting the facts and moving on. I also agree that college is expensive! Some more than others, of course. Some areas do have no cost tuition colleges. I had a friend that was from Germany and just here for the summer. She did not pay for college. It was free where she lived. She could not understand why we were actually paying for college. Also, why pay for college and not other schooling? This is something we could work on. This system works in some areas. This change could benefit our goal for equality in education.

Gabrilla-Exactly! "Future educators should work on ways to level the playing field so all students have an equal opportunity to exceed in their education." I loved this thought. This is so true. Making the students feel as if they are all equal is essential. The fact is if a student "leaves his baggage at the door" in some way, they open themselves up to an entire new world. The world outside of the classroom could slip away during the day. Equality in the classroom could help everyone do well regardless of their SES. This would also promote a solid foundation and a feeling of community. This would encourage a "we are in this together" mentality, as well. There are several different ways we could change the educational structure so that the SES could matter less in terms of individuals being educated. I think the small differences we could start with could change the bigger picture more than we initially think.

"Standardized tests tend to measure the temporary acquisition of facts and skills, including the skill of test-taking itself, more than genuine understanding. To that extent, the fact that such tests are more likely to be used and emphasized in schools with higher percentages of minority students (a fact that has been empirically verified) predictably results in poorer-quality teaching in such schools." That seems so backwards to me, it is unbelievable. It seems really unfortunate to me that teaching quality is going down due to testing. I feel like less should emphasis should be placed on students to preform on tests the way they are required to. When FCAT starts, a student in 3rd grade is being tested, required to sit still, and told their academic performance in the classroom can be overturned if they do poorly on this test. Third graders can surprise you, but I really don't think that testing this strenuous, this young, is good for children. I am in not in agreement with the "few countries use standardized tests for children below high school age-or multiple-choice tests for students of any age." I think testing has its place, but should not be emphasized as it is.

I found Fact 4 ("standardized-test scores often measure superficial thinking.") to be true in my own experiences. When studying for the SAT in high school, I could often answer many questions right, but just not in the time frame allowed. I had to take courses that taught tricks and shortcuts that involved almost no math in order for me to finish the math section. This was superficial thinking. The test was no longer testing my ability to work out these problems properly. Rather, the test had now become a game of "tricks." If you knew the right tricks, you can breeze through the test. This is stupid. I was not demonstrating any real mastery of skills, only mastery of memorization of rules and shortcuts. This article made some good points against standardized exams. I do not think they should be abolished; however, I do think they are unnecessary at least in elementary schools. Middle school seems like a more logical time to start this. Elementary school should be for basic learning, skill development and creativity.

I strangle disagree with the statement, "virtually all relevant experts and organizations condemn the practice of basing important decisions, such as graduation or promotion, on the results of a single test." I personally was very torn about this during high school. I do not agree that one test can change where you go to college or what you are going to do with your life. I personally was lucky to score high on my standardize test. However, I have friends that didn't get into their dream schools just because of one test. I think that in the United States, the idea of standardize testing needs to dramatically change. I completely believe that teachers focus to much on these test. Personally, I feel like I never truly learned how to write in high school because from freshman year to junior year, we were writing directly for the FCAT. Then, we had very little time to learn to write for college and for professional careers.

First and foremost, this article made me thankful for Teach For America and other organizations who recognize, promote, and attempt to overcome the achievement gap between low-income students and high-income ones. I think some of the research and references presented in this article are a tragedy and I wish that there was an easy remedy for it. As for the standardized testing, I completely agree with the author when she discusses "material that will not appear on the test". I know that I personally will block out something I've learned and disregard it entirely if the teacher tells me it will not be on the test. Conversely, if the teacher speak the words "this will definitely be on your test", I will memorize, jot down, and pay rapt attention to whatever she or he has just said. I feel this is how many kids are becoming and where schools are pushing us to: ignoring "unimportant" information that will not be on a test, and focusing on information that will appear on a test.

I agree with the article that way too much emphasis is put on standardized testing. Teachers spend so much time preparing students for standardized tests that programs such as art, recess, and electives must be cut. Cutting these programs from the curriculum decreases creative and imaginative learning. I agree with fact 4 that standardized test scores often measure superficial learning. The article states that "In a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, elementary school students were classified as "actively" engaged in learning if they asked questions of themselves while they read and tried to connect what they were doing to past learning; and as "superficially" engaged if they just copied down answers, guessed a lot, and skipped the hard parts." I completely agree that standardized testing is superficial. I found that when I took the SAT, I knew how to do the problems, but I was not allotted enough time to think through them. In agree with Elise that SAT prep courses teach students "tricks," so that they are able to complete the problems faster. In some cases, students are even taught to look for key words to answer questions without even reading the entire problem. I feel that courses like these teach students to rush through things, guess, and skip hard questions. I disagree with fact 6 that "virtually all relevant experts and organizations condemn the practice of basing important decisions, such as graduation or promotion on the results of a single test." Now-a-days in order to get into college, a student must have high SAT scores, a high GPA, and extracurricular activities. High SAT scores play a huge role in being accepted into the college of your choice. Several students I know are not good test takers, but may be very smart and have a high GPA; unfortunately this can be overlooked because of such strong emphasis on SAT scores.

I agree and really think that standardized testing is creating victims because children today are not excercising enough, lack motivation, and resembling robots in the classroom. "Fact 8. Many educators are leaving the field because of what is being done to schools in the name of "accountability" and "tougher standards." I have no hard numbers here, but there is more than enough anecdotal evidence-corroborated by administrators, teacher-educators, and other observers across the country, and supported by several state surveys that quantify the extent of disenchantment with testing- to warrant classifying this as a fact. Prospective teachers are rethinking whether they want to begin a career in which high test scores matter most, and in which they will be pressured to produce these scores (Kohn, 2000)." I chose Fact 8 out of all the facts in the article because I believe that Facts 8 is very understandable because teachers have to endure watching their students' creativity disappear after each semester of teaching. I also agree with Chelsea Townsend's opinions about how there is pressure on students today to make sure they have high SAT scores to get into a great college. In conclusion, we as a society need to make sure that students across the United States of America know and understand that life is more than an exam.

While the discussion of religion in schools promotes much controversy, it is important for students to learn about diversity in the world. Schools should not force a certain religion or beliefs on a student, however, the information should be presented for the student to decide. Additionally, as religion played a role in America's foundation, it is important students understand religion in historical context. This can be accomplished without a bias and without the pressure to adopt certain beliefs. The following quote begins with a legitimate claim, however retires into the notions that must be avoided: "The effort to move things in that direction is being led by advocates who not only want to see a greater appreciation of the role faith played in the story of our nation's founding and many important moments since -- it seems they want nothing less than curricula that tell students who God is, which side "He" is on, and that we are all doomed if we don't subscribe to particular beliefs. Forget crossing over the line; these folks don't even acknowledge that the line exists." After all, it is important for students to have diverse knowledge, yet they must feel comfortable in choosing their own beliefs, and this is where Texas officials are mistaking.

There is a blatant difference between the teaching of religion and preaching of religion. I thought this one quote summed that up pretty well: "Even if we are believers, we know that there is a difference between teaching about the history of religion in America and preaching the Gospel to a captive audience of children in our nation's classrooms." No one form of religion should be taught in the public arena. If this is the wish of the parent, they can enroll the child in the proper school for that whether it be a Jewish Day school or a Catholic school or anything else. However, this country has the establishment clause of the in the First Amendment of the constitution. I agree with the author of the article that it is not necessarily the fault of the Reverend; rather, it is the fault of the officials who placed them on the board knowing how they would vote.

I found this article to be quite interesting and very important to the future of our educational system, since Texas, "as the nation's second largest purchaser of public school textbooks, what gets decided in Texas actually affects many of the rest of us, regardless of the state in which we live." The article is debated about in a very black and white manner, like many hot topics today. Rather than talking about religion in order to teach it, "it seems they want nothing less than curricula that tell students who God is, which side "He" is on, and that we are all doomed if we don't subscribe to particular beliefs." Thankfully, "most Americans are somewhere in the middle on this issue, as we are on most of the so-called-hot-button issues." Therefore, shouldn't government take this middle ground stance? What we need are, "leaders who will advocate for that sane middle ground that neither turns teachers into preachers nor ignores the crucial role of religion -- and Christianity in particular -- in our shared history." We need to teach our students about how religion has affected history, "rather than teach either theology or devotional religion in our public schools -- which, the last time I checked, was against the law."

This article was very interesting and controversial. I understand that it is against the law to teach theology or devotional religion in our public schools. However, I don't believe that it is doing us any harm. I believe that every student will form their own individual idea of religion and God on their own from what they believe. I do agree with Elise that there is a blatant difference between the teaching of religion and preaching of religion. Students should be taught about religion but it should by no means be forced upon them. I also agree that it is important for students to learn the diversity in the world which includes every individual type of religion and belief. It is important for students to choose what they believe and don't believe. I am very confused about how I feel about this article and this controversy going on in Texas.

"As the nation's second largest purchaser of public school textbooks, what gets decided in Texas actually affects many of the rest of us, regardless of the state in which we live." This just shows how much power we will give to others to decide the future of education for our children. It's as if people only wanting to capture specific parts of history did not end in the early centuries with the people who we have been studying about. Even today, there are individuals who will not let the idea of "Christian roots" go and embrace the fact that history includes not only that, much so much more that has been brushed aside. It is not okay to involve opinions on "what [individuals on the state's curriculum advisory panel] think is best from the perspective of their particular theologies" in the history of our country. History should be about facts and the primary sources in which these facts are discovered. Either way, this debate is extremely important to the future of education and will have a ripple effect across the country.

I think this article was very interesting because the decisions that Texas makes will affect the schooling of students all around the country. I do not agree with religious leaders being put on the state's curriculum advisory panel. That panel should be reserved for educators. Texas is known for having traditional beliefs but I think Texas should keep in mind that their decisions will affect thousands of students. I do not think that it is appropriate for Texas to force their traditional beliefs on the rest of the country. Textbooks should be educational and unbiased. Students are expected to be the masters of their own learning and therefore the masters of their opinions as well. The only way to make this country better to fill it with free thinkers and the only way we can do that is to present them with unbiased information.

"They willfully create havoc from which little good can emerge other than the thrashing of any citizens who oppose them." This quote is referring to the officials in Texas, but also others that choose school curricula, who are blatantly stating their own moral and religious beliefs even though it is not in the best interest of the schools, community, or citizens of the country. Overall, I think that because religion and state were separated, the religious leaders have no place on the public school advisory panel in any state, especially if that particular state will be impacting the nation. This article was really interesting to me because I was not aware that this was happening or that it was an issue. I really hope that soon there will be no conflict between religion and public schooling.

This article is about the Texas State Board of Education's conference assessing how much the curricula and the textbooks used should reflect the "Christian roots" of our nation and the Christian faith of our nation's majority. This topic is so controversial because it is important for students to learn about the diversity of the world, without being forced to believe a certain religion. There is an obvious difference between teaching religion and preaching it, teachers should not cross this line of difference. I agree with the quote from the article "Even if we are believers, we know that there is a difference between teaching about the history of religion in America and preaching the Gospel to a captive audience of children in our nation's classrooms. No specific religion should be taught in the classroom, rather the history of religion and our nation.

"As the nation's second largest purchaser of public school textbooks, what gets decided in Texas actually affects many of the rest of us, regardless of the state in which we live. Not surprisingly, a big percentage of what is being debated is how much the curricula and the textbooks used should reflect the "Christian roots" of our nation and the Christian faith of our nation's majority." I think that schools should use textbooks that have information on all of the major religions. Just because the majority of Americans are christian does not mean we should have textbooks that only reflect the christian religion. It is unfair to non- christian students, and we need students to be able to respect each others different religious beliefs. This can happen if they are taught about each others religious beliefs.

"...it seems they want nothing less than curricula that tell students who God is, which side "He" is on, and that we are all doomed if we don't subscribe to particular beliefs" (WHAT?!?!) Texas has become quite infamous for their actions when it comes to public education system. Christianity and all other religions, simply, should be kept out of history unless it is pertinent to the story at hand. To say that they are trying to enforce that God was on a certain side of history is absurd. Several wars have started over religion and the last thing we would want is for there to be strife in our own country due to Texas' textbooks.

I found this article to be fascinating; Texans really are a breed of their own. I come from a small conservative Christian town where they would love to adopt the ideas posed the Board of Education. The problem lies within the practice in this case. It is true that religion played a part in shaping our history but the reason for it's departure in the classroom plays an even bigger part. The article states "Texas teachers and parents have had enough of liberal fringe groups trying to radically change and rewrite American history. This liberal effort to infiltrate, indoctrinate, and saturate our students' schools with extreme liberal ideology will fail." I found this very ironic because the very thing they are afraid of is leading them to practice it. This was the same case for the Protestants dealing with Catholics in moral education.

One particular quote from this article stuck out to me the most, "That history should be explored in the classroom as just that, history, not theology or religious practice." I couldn't agree more with this notion, history in the classroom should focus on that history and continue to try its best explain to students where we are as a country now and where we were then. The only time religion should be brought up in the classroom is when explaining the reasoning behind separation of church and state. If we bring religion into the classroom it will alter the beliefs of students and the religion they practice at home.

When reading this article, the quote that I found the most important was, "Religion has animated many causes in our nation's history, and our children are entitled to hear the entire story in all its complexity" and that pretty much sums up how I feel about this issue. As discussed in class, the Texas education board has implemented some 'radical' things, and we came to the conclusion that there are villains and heroes of history, and the debate on what should or should not be shared. In the context of religion, I completely agree with the quote saying that the religion is part of our history, we should not try to force it onto the students.

"That history should be explored in the classroom as just that, history, not theology or religious practice. Students should know that among the founding fathers there were men of deeply traditional faith and that without their faith they would have accomplished far less." This quote is very true because there should be no debate about leaving out the part of American history that it was founded on Christian ideals because that is what actually happened. History is objective, and no one is trying to sway people to a certain religion. What happened happened, and we cannot rewrite history to make it sound how we want it to sound, making it subjective rather than objective.

I chose the same quote as Amanada, "Religion has animated many causes in our nation's history, and our children are entitled to hear the entire story in all its complexity .That is what it means to study the history of religion and its influence in America, which is what we should do rather than teach either theology or devotional religion in our public schools ". Not only does it sum up the entire article but it has such a strong point. Its not about making people believe a certain way or trying to make them feel the same. its about what happened in history and how choose to interpret it now.

Kelsey, one of my students last semester wrote a fascinating paper on this "unschooling" phenomenon - I am intrigued! Can't wait to hear your perspective on it.

""When you think about it, the way they do things in school is mostly for crowd control," said Karen Tucker, a mother of three boys who is an unschooler in Siloam Springs, Ark., and belongs to the Unschoolers of the Ozarks. "We don't duplicate the methods of school because we've rejected school."" I agree with Karen Tucker here. The American school system is a joke, I can say this because I have experienced it, and I am pretty sure the majority of the students that have gone through this system can say the same thing. I feel that I would have learned more if I was outside of the school system because I really didn't learn much in the school system to begin with. Teachers hardly taught, especially when they were mostly "crowd controlling" due to fights and misbehavior from students in the classroom. So, I can definitely see why they reject school, I know I would reject an education like the one I had for my children.

I think that the article supports the quotes chosen from the text. I found the quote "Teachers don't spend a lot of time exploring unexpected ideas because they might not be sure where it will lead, Beghetto said. As a result, "out-of-the-box" thinking gets discouraged. Beghetto is not blaming teachers, who may even feel as though they cannot teach creativity. But teaching to prepare for tests and teaching to develop creativity are not mutually exclusive, Beghetto said. Teachers should recognize that unexpected answers may still lead to meaningful conversation and learning in a classroom." I believe that this quote expressly depicts the problem with standardized testing. The article states that there is less play in classrooms, and I find this to be too true. When I go into classrooms, I think one of the main reasons teachers have to get kids on task and stop them from side conversations, is because they do not get enough time to really interact with one another. Even in the form of group art projects, the children could explore new creative activities. However, the strict curriculum that teachers must stick to humbles all attempts at this. The quote from the text about butterflies shows this problem. I am not sure, but I feel as though if standardized testing is so important, it should continue, but perhaps the 180 days that kids are in school should be extended. That way, there will be time to learn what is needed for the test, but also time for other important lessons.

Although the recurrent discussion about the effects of standardized testing continually progress with negative opinions from educators, officials increasingly stress the importance of such examinations. Consequently, today's youth are losing factors of creativity and imagination. "The current focus on testing in schools, and the idea that there is only one right answer to a question, may be hampering development of creativity among kids, Beghetto said. "There's not much room for unexpected, novel, divergent thought," he said. In fact, it is such unexpected, novel, divergent thought that leads to new discoveries. Just as students need an active outlet such as recess to channel energy, children need the opportunity to be creative and foster imaginative play. Not only is standardized testing putting a damper on the ability of teachers to allow students creative freedom, funding decreases have forced officials to cut back on structured creative outlets such as music and art, in order to allot more money for the expenses that accompany testing. At this point, it might be up to parents to support their children's creativity, including swapping creative play for some of the hours spent on electronics.

Pointing fingers is always easy for any issue that arises. In regards to lack of creativity, teaching to the test seems like an easy culprit. This is not a reflection of the teachers ability to teach or ability to help the children explore their creativity (or lack thereof). Mandating yearly exams has consequences. Teachers have been threatened with their salaries being determined based on how their students perform on standardized tests; therefore, the teachers feel it necessary to teach to the test. When creating these policies, the policy-makers do not realize what they are actually talking away from the child. Children want to please their teacher. This is best described when Beghetto says "the interaction between students and teachers has become one of 'intellectual hide and seek.' The students try to match what they think the teacher wants to hear." I do not think the students are becoming any lazier or that we are breeding less creative children. Games like dress up, mom/daughter, doctor/nurse, pretending to be your favorite pop band, are all necessary for the children to build creativity and get out all their energy.

"The current focus on testing in schools, and the idea that there is only one right answer to a question, may be hampering development of creativity among kids" It is upsetting to hear that due to the No Child Left Behind Act we are actually taking a lot away from our children. These tests were initally used to measure the mastery of skills to make sure all students receive an equal education. I personally believe the idea of standardized testing has gone too far, especially when it begins to take a toll on our students' creative ability. Furthermore, I was not entirely stunned by this article. Outside of standardized testing I feel there are many other factors affecting creative ability. Video games, TV shows and busy schedules have begun to consume all Americans, even the youngest ones. I think children really need to spend more time outside, more time with other children and have a less intense schedule to really get their creative juices flowing. With that said, the education system even wants to take away recess during the school day. This will be yet another factor contributing to less creative minds amongst our future leaders.

I agree with most of this article. This is an article that has many interesting comments and assumtions. For example, in the article, Beghetto states, "I think there should be a variety of ways to assess what students know and how they know it." I agree with this statement. I feel that testing today is not a correct way of determining children's "intelligence". I agree that children today need to work on their creativity. They need to be allowed to find their creativity that helps them build character. I think that taking away recess is one of the worst things you could do for children. They need that time to be themselves and not have to be who they are in the classroom. This will increase the lack of creativity children have today.

Although I find the article and interesting one and a great read, I do wonder if the way we find and measure creativity is entirely effective. It seems that testing for creativity is a very difficult and subjective test and I question its validity. I also wonder if the standard of creativity or the perceptions of creativity has changed over the past few decades. This would mean that our creativity styles would be different than those of generations before. I am always skeptical to think my generation is better than the ones that follows, and in the same way, that older generations have abilities that I can't or don't have. However, this is coming from a girl who is a naturally excellent test taker. I am good at information recall and application, but I am one of the most uncreative people I know. So I could be wrong. Either way, the author cites TV watching and standardized testing as two reasons for our less creative society. I see TV watching as the greater of the two evils as I feel it has more of an impact and that it is wasted time, unlike testing which, to me, is necessary.

Recent findings have found that creativity has decreased among American children. "Since 1990, children have become less able to produce unique and unusual ideas. They are also less humorous, less imaginative and less able to elaborate on ideas." The current focus on standardized testing in schools is the cause of this decrease in creativity. Teachers spend so much time trying to meet test standards that students do not have time to express themselves; for example, through imaginative play. Children need time to exert energy and show creativity. With so much time spent on standardized test practice children become narrow-minded.

I agree that the article and your assigned book have many correlations because both the article and book discuss today's American children levels of creativity, a decrease of thinking outside the box, and lack of imaginative skills. I believe that standardize tests are becoming more and more normative in our schools. For example, in a recent survey there are some states lobbying for standardized tests to start training preschoolers to hopefully result in better test scores before the students graduate high school. In the article, "Kim said No Child Left Behind, an act of Congress passed in 2001 that requires schools to administer annual standardized tests as a way to assess whether they are meeting state education standards, may be partly responsible for the drop in creativity scores ( Rettner, 2011)." I believe that US states officials are focusing too much on high performance test scores and not the welfare of the child. Overall, I think creativity and individuality sets a person apart from the social norm.

Coming from another country where the "school district" concept doesn't exist, it is hard for me to understand how students are forced to go to a school that can't provide with what they need/want. For this I don't think that it is a crime for a parent to do anything to offer their kids a better schooling. Although this might not seem fair to some people, I'm sure that if they were in the same situation they will do the same. It could be argued that students could try really hard to be the top student but when they are competing with other top students in top schools...what are their chances?

I personally didn't have a male teacher until I reached high school, but I honestly don't have a problem with having a male teacher as an elementary teacher. If a male teacher wants to teach at the elementary/middle school level, then they should have the right to.

I think that this is such an interesting topic. I only had two male teachers before reaching high school, and neither of them were my home room teachers. One was my music teacher, and the other was a higher level math teacher. I really liked them both. But it actually wasn't until this topic was brought up in our conversation at our table this morning during class, that I realized how few male teachers I have. I can confidently say that I have really enjoyed and learned a lot from all of the male teachers that I've had. I think men can absolutely be passionate about teaching. I understand the reasoning for skepticism that is brought up in the article, but I also think that the reasons are kind of silly. if a man wants to teach, he should teach. If a woman wants to be an engineer, she should be one. Oy vay, gender bias.

"What's a young single dude doing teaching fourth grade anyway?!" Oh man...obviously, there must be something wrong with him. The young single girl though? She's in the right place.

"I really think it has a lot to do with the personality of the teacher," said Dr. Caryl Oris, a consulting psychiatrist for the Sewanhaka Central High School District on Long Island, N.Y. "What matters more than anything is that it's a good teacher and the teacher loves to teach." ^Amen, to the above. My elementary school had about four or five teachers assigned to teach the third grade. I distinctly remember one of them being a young male. He was not my teacher. My teacher was a young female, fresh out of college, with a degree but little experience in actually handling small children. She was mean, bitter, and obviously in over her head. She and my parents would constantly be on the phone with one another about something or other (for a child who had been considered a stellar example of good behavior, this was considered odd). I only bring this up because the other teacher, the young male teacher, taught the class that shared a recess with my own. The kids in both classes would play together and talk together and I remember, even now, how jealous I was of the kids in his class. They seemed to enjoy going to school, and their teacher always had some great game or movie to show about whatever the topic of the day was. When our classes played structured games together, he seemed more than willing to do what the kids were doing and had fun doing it. My teacher stood off to the side--a very sharp contrast. PS: My teacher was gone before I had finished the fifth grade. And the male teacher, last time I checked (a few years ago) was still at the elementary school, married and happily teaching.