EDF3604 - Social Foundations of Education

So, here's the plan: ditch the standardized tests, use NAEP instead, and spend those billions of dollars on food, health care, gardens, and books. Okay, education problem solved. Well done, Peg!

This article really moved me. After reading the Kozol article in class i was very disturbed by the living conditions of the families in East St. Louis. And this article only exacerbated my feelings. I find it incredible that America, the country of opportunity and prosperity, "neglects" its children in such a way that does not allow them to have either of those things. Ms. Peggy made so many valid points about the inefficiency of standardized tests and i strongly agree with her. It angers me that innocent children are not receiving the same education across the country, and worse, our government thinks that standardized tests are the solution to this problem. How can our government be so heartless?

This is an awesome article. I think it relates to what I wrote in another comment about how students should be allowed to pursue their passions in addition to having a sense of the basic disciplines as well. Here it goes a step farther, taking the basics in service of the unique issues instead of the starting point and foundation. I like the idea of backing off on standardized testing in order to give students the opportunity to learn in practical situations- it mimics the real world, including the fact that different people specialize in different areas, but all of the specialties are necessary to create a holistic solution to the large issues we face. Students can learn about a variety of disciplines relevant to the issue, and have a chance to delve into their particular interests to make a special contribution. In today's information-driven world where the dates of historical battles and more are at students' fingertips, it makes more sense to be teaching students what to do with this information. Helping them to integrate the various disciplines and to evaluate the information they can access to put it to good use seems a better education to meet our needs and more appropriately use the resources we have so easily available, while also encouraging more passion for students than what they get when they are taught for testing only. It's learning they're much less likely to lay aside after the test is over.

Maybe moral education should be about developing students' individual passions? And supporting them in developing "grit"?

This makes me think about how, on the higher education level, the top students tend to be those who pursue their passions outside the bounds of traditional categories- I think this is even true of professionals who tend to be recognized in their fields. As the article says, no history teacher would want to be blatantly mainstream. Part of the richness of university life is the affinity spaces of clubs and classes for unique interests, and this is present to a degree in earlier education through clubs, too. I think a certain exposure to a wide array of topics is important for earlier education, but I think the perspective for this can be shifted from a necessary baseline in every subject to drawing interdisciplinary advantages towards the developing passion of the student. In the early years, a basic education in all subjects, with opportunities to explore connections or more deeply delve into a growing passion could help students to discover why they should persist in learning, and to take more ownership of the process and developing knowledge. I experienced this kind of opportunity through independent research opportunities in elementary school in a gifted program- this is the kind of program that can benefit all students, not just those identified as gifted.

How can we get more money for schools? Stop letting corporations evade property taxes?

What do you think? Can schools really overcome our class divisions?

Do you agree with the author of this blog, or with Horace Mann? Are women inherently better nurturers?