Group items tagged

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.

This article highlights some important areas. We can't expect our students to excel academically if the teachers aren't properly paid, thus effecting the education. Look at this stat, "Eric A. Hanushek of Stanford University found that an excellent teacher (one a standard deviation better than average, or better than 84 percent of teachers) raises each student's lifetime earnings by $20,000. If there are 20 students in the class, that is an extra $400,000 generated, compared with a teacher who is merely average. " If these are the numbers that may potentially become effected, we need to pay teachers more. Period.

Good article Amy! Paying teachers a higher salary will benefit everyone in the long run. Even raising a teacher's salary by $20,000 will effect us in such a positive way. I think generating this kind of money on top of giving our students a better education is a win win solution!

Teaching is one of the most criticized professions today along with the most underpaid. For a society that bases itself on creating successful entrepreneurs to make the country more wealthy, we refuse to recognize the importance of putting that money back into the education system. How can we expect so much from our schools if we aren't willing to invest in the most qualified teachers?

I agree with Kelsey, it's perplexing to be living in a society in which we rely so heavily on an education system that we openly refuse to put back into. Even with the unions that formed to protect teacher interests, in light of recent events, it may not be long before those are called into question and banned.

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.

"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.

I liked this article, too. I think it's sad that people tend to distrust male elementary school teachers, like the only reason they would choose to work with children is because they have bad intentions.

I think this is interesting. In this day in age if men want to teach younger children, so be it. As long as they are capable of running the environment and producing a classroom that promotes positive education they should teach. There shouldn't be a social stigma about a male teaching kindergarten. That's ridiculous and rather ignorant.

I completely agree that there shouldn't be a social stigma about male teachers in elementary schools. Men can be just as nurturing and as good as teachers as women. It just makes sense to me that there are so few male teachers because of the low status and low pay aspect. That aspect is still around and prominent in the teaching profession. Men wouldn't want to put themselves into that situation in addition to the negative stereotypes.

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.

The unfairness is appalling. The low spending looks so attractive but it's the children in their schools that don't get spent on. And the hypocrisy, "In practice, however, when advocates of lower spending get a chance to put their ideas into practice, the burden always seems to fall disproportionately on those very children they claim to hold so dear." And this quote just straight up scared me: "Consider, as a case in point, what's happening in Texas, which more and more seems to be where America's political future happens first". If this is just the beginning, or a taste of where the rest of America is going to end up, then some serious steps need to be taken to prevent it.

This sounds crazy. They're making budget cuts in all the wrong places! I understand that cuts are necessary because of the economy but this is going to have a seriously negative impact on their state. If children are "the future" then theirs isn't looking very bright and I think it would be wise of them to reconsider. Having one of the lowest high school graduation rates, ranking 5th in child poverty, and being below national average health wise does not look very good on their part. Not a very promising future if you ask me!