Class+01+-+Jan+26

=** Class 1 **=
 * Class Notes**:

**__PURPOSES OF EDUCATION__**
 * **Traditional** || **Liberal/ Progressive** || **Transformative** ||
 * * Job
 * Better Job
 * Socialization
 * Basic functions- //literacy, numeracy//
 * Rules of Society
 * Values and Morals
 * Exposure
 * New Education ideas
 * Raising the GDP-//more $ for science/math to compete in global economy, vocational/tech schools//
 * One way of knowing something || * Invention
 * Socialization
 * Values and morals
 * Exposure
 * New Education ideas
 * Creativity
 * **Individualism**
 * //Montessori, some magnate schools//
 * Teacher= middle manager
 * Exploration
 * Using qualification to illicit responses slightly different from those of traditional teaching methods || * Help other people
 * Learn about the diversity of others and ourselves
 * Values and morals
 * Communities history
 * Exposure
 * New Education Ideas
 * **Community**
 * Community involvement
 * Democratic
 * Exploration
 * Example: __Common Ground High School__: New Haven schools definition of community is ecology+society+culture ||

**POLITICAL SPECTRUM: Christopher Columbus** Conservative || Liberal || Radical ||
 * As a teacher you will always pull from all three – depending on the needs of your students
 * * Discovered America
 * Good guy
 * Hero || * Native people
 * Explorers prior to Columbus || * Treatment of Natives
 * Slavery, raping, killing
 * Columbus “regime”
 * Disease ||


 * ¨__Neutral__” =** Teaching from all three perspectives
 * __Neutral__ depends on who is defining it
 * __Radical__ = not agreeing with the structure of the system (revolution)
 * __Liberal__ = moderately critical of the system
 * __Conservative__ = happy with the system and status quo
 * __Conservative__ || __Liberal__ || __Radical__ ||
 * * Rush Limbaugh
 * “W” à theoretically (neo) || * Obama (neo)
 * Ted Kennedy || * Che Guevara
 * Fidel Castro ||
 * Dennis Kucinich in between “radical” and “liberal”
 * Anarchy: extremely radical


 * Neo-Conservatives à Adhering to social “norms” (1950s or before)
 * Neo-Liberals à laissez faire, deregulation, letting the marketplace drive everything
 * NAFTA à Global market à jobs gone à Poverty à unemployment (Annie F)

__Traditional__ · Job · Better job · Socialization · Basic functions · Literacy, numeracy · Rules of society · Values & morals · Exposure · New educational ideas __Liberal/ Progressive__ · Invention · Socialization · Values and morals · Exposure · New educational ideas · Creativity · Individualism __Transformative__ · Help other people · Learn diversity of others and ourselves · Values and morals · Community’s history · Exposure · New educational ideas · Community involvement · Community= ecology and social and culture

Remember about the metaphor on how to get to downtown Hartford capital building and peoples different outlooks…

__Conservative/ traditional__ · Columbus discovered America · Good guy/ hero · “neutral” __Liberal__ · Native peoples · Other explorers to Columbus · “neutral” __Radical__ · Treatment · Slavery-Raping-Killing · Gold · Columbus “regime” Neoconservative= adhering to social “norms” as of the 1950’s Neoliberal= See the market place as a driving force
 * __Political spectrum__**
 * // Conservative= //** system is ok may need a few changes
 * // Liberal= //** System is ok needs more changes
 * // Radical= //** System needs complete change

Sorry that took forever to post, was a bit confused how to do this (Greg G) :-/

I think it’s important to mention what Dr. Love told us about Anarchy. Yes it’s on the extreme radical side of the spectrum however; it is not what the majority of people think of when they hear the word anarchy. History has defiled the word into something of chaos, mutiny and disaster. In actuality, anarchy is the idea of pure democracy where no government hierarchy exists and all the people of a nation come together in equality to make decisions in a very peaceful environment. So often were encouraged to think that radical ideas are insane, ridiculous, and immature when it is often the case that they make more sense than any other avenue of thought. (Chris K.)
 * Clarifications for the class notes this week**:

I thought this article was interesting it's short... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-legend/education-reform-the-civi_b_426490.html (Annie F)
 * Clarifications, points, and questions work pursuing for future weeks (Extend the discussion from this week's class):**

I'm responding to Chris K's note about the brief discussion that we had about anarchist practices and philosophy. He brings up an interesting point worth exploring at the end of his entry. Let's assume for a moment that people do interpret anarchist practices as being peaceful and guided largely by local decision-making and what anarchist philosophers (like Noam Chomsky, Daniel Guerin, Emma Goldman, etc.) call "true democracy" where every voice has a say and is included in one's community. To what extent would this be welcomed, pursued, avoided, feared, etc. in our society? What might be the implications and tensions for public education if this kind of anarchy was the dominant practice of our society? (Dr. Love)

An interesting point that was brought up in class was that of the political spectrum. Thinking about this, I wondered how this fit into my concentration (Biology). The first thing that I thought of was the controversial issue of whether students should be taught evolution and creationism in the public school system. Conservatives would say that the way we are teaching students about evolution is fine and bringing in the concept of creationism crosses the line of separation of church and state in which public schools are not to teach religion. Liberals would change the system slightly by introducing both topics as parts of history, which allows students to make their own decisions on believing in evolution and creationism. Radicals would say that the ideas of evolution and creationism are not the topic that is worth discussing; they would focus on the controversy of the topic and why it has become such a hot topic in which officials that have no teaching background decide what should be taught. I guess this goes back to the reading of chapter 1 in Spring’s //American Education// in which it states that the goal of public schools are to “serve the public and not necessarily the individual” (Spring,3). Are we failing to teach the individual in order to benefit the public? Is this actually benefiting the public? This was a topic that intrigued me because I was not presented with the idea of creationism until college. Did my public education fail me? Which area of the political spectrum is neutral? Are there topics like this in other concentrations? Let’s discuss…(Elisabeth d)

In edition to the notes: the purposes of education: under the traditional the power is more with the teacher however they only echo information given to them, under the liberal-progressive it is focused on individualism, the students can come up with their own answers and it is more flexible and under the transformative the teacher works with the students and participates in activities, it offers open-ended questions and students can again come up with their own answers. The transformative purpose is really new, it is so new that some people do not know how to implement it into schools. (Jessica Morneault)

To continue along with what Jessica said: Does education have to be on or the other? From my observations I see that education in the classroom touches upon traditional, liberal-progressive and transformative. Jessica mentions what each of these would be in the purpose of education, and from what I see, the most influential classroom would include all of these elements. For traditional the teacher has the power which is echoed from above, but that is what is seen in most classrooms, the teacher has the power in the room, has the book with the answers and is told what to teach for students to pass standardized tests. You also see liberal-progressive because teachers focus on individual students having them question and explore, even through these responses we are questioning and working as individuals and exploring a subject. Through transformative I feel that this is shown in classrooms through learning diversity and understanding others and their cultures as they relate to the community. We have seen it a lot in our ed classes here at Central, diversity is a large part of classrooms, and teachers are involving the community, parents, and backgrounds more and more. (Kristie F)

If we taught from all the 3 spectrums and it became the "norm", would anything be Radical? I don't understand why we have to hide the Radical points of views... I almost feel offended that my middle school teachers weren't telling me the entire truth behind historical events. And then, how might you incorporate the 3 approaches to Education in a curriculum? Could you set aside three separate ways of assessment? (Jessica Roberts)

I do agree with Jessica that it is frustrating to learn years later that we spent most of our elementary years getting just parts of history, or just what they wanted us to know. On the other hand I don't think at that age I would've really understood how terrible the natives were treated during the years of Christopher Columbus (going off of our class example) I do think that it is possible to teach from all three spectrums because, as we saw in class, most topics and strategies can go across all of them. There will always be a Radical side to anything. There will always be someone who wants to go against the majority and bring in a new idea. Radical ideas are always changing. If you think about it, years ago it may have been radical thinking to have children of different races go to school together int he same building now it is what we want in our school systems. Unfortunately as we read in Kozol, this is a whole other issue coming back. I would hope that we take all of these ideas and try to incorporate lessons from all over the spectrum in our classrooms. (Kelly Bates)

To also continue with this discussion, but branching towards the roles of teaching: Ultimately there isn’t one way to teach a child. In order to teach we must scaffold. We need to build a support system that will aid learners to better achieve in schools. Kozal makes references to this in his book. Not every child is going to learn through transformative teaching. They may learn better through traditional, or even a liberal approach. I think being a good teacher is teaching/inspiring children through using different approaches and styles. To critically think and be sensitive to the needs of ALL the children is something that we must take into account. Even after reading Kristie F’s comment, I agree with her last few sentences. We’re teaching in diverse communities, we’re a diverse culture, so our teaching strategies must also incorporate diverse teaching/learning approaches as well. By doing this, real learning and reflecting can take place. (Tara Gleason)

I definitely agree with Tara that we must incorporate many teaching strategies into our lessons in order to reach every child on some level. In addition to Kozal I also find inspiration in Howard Gardner's Thoery of Multiple Intelligences. I feel that he successfully incorporates all different methods of teaching into his approach. He recognizes that not every child/individual learns the same and they should not be expected to. His theory was seen as radical at first but many teachers are putting this into practice and it is really working for them. Like some others have mentioned, balance is what is the most important. It would be foolish to teach in just a tradition, liberal or progressive way. I also feel that as teachers it is our jobs to give our students the truth in order to help them grow into better and more open minded people. I too felt betrayed when I learned that my teachers had left out some pretty big gaps in their history lessons. I hope that we as teachers will be able to fill those holes for our students in a critical and respectful manner. (Sarah Rousseau)

I think that part of the reason that we never learned all the points of views when we were in elementary and middle school is not just because of the types of teachers we had but what they were also restricted to teaching. Overall, I think in some ways their needs to be some leniency in the curriculum. Some teachers must feel that they are restricted to teaching certain items of a topic that they cannot incorporate their ideas and go more in-depth in their lessons. I agree with Tara's comment about being able to teach using different methods because not everyone learns the same way. However, the content that is taught does depend on what is considered to be the norm or neutral viewpoint. In a diverse community or classroom, I think some of the ideas and beliefs will be questioned or challenged by the students depending upon their own thoughts. (Allie French)

I agree with what Tara and Sarah posted that there are multiple ways of reaching a child, and I think that many teachers I've had in the past have given up on their students too easily. This needs to stop! Teachers cannot expect that everyone learns the same way and that students will just sit back and take in the information on the first try. I can remember in elementary school when teachers got frustrated because some students just did not understand their one approach of looking at a subject. I remember one student in social studies who constantly argued with the teacher and the teacher literally despised him and would roll her eyes every time he even opened his mouth to speak, she already knew what was coming...everyone in class agreed he would grow up and run for office one day because he could argue and argue and argue, any side of the story. As Allie said, it depeneds on how the student feels whether or not he will challenge the subject. I now see that arguing and questioning yourself and others is not necessarily a bad thing. As Dr. Love mentioned in class, it is not enough to just learn the material, but you must ask youself, "Why do I need to learn this and why is this important?" As Kohl says in Chapter 4, if children know that what they are learning effects them in some way, they will want to know more and will show more interest in it than if it had nothing to do with them. You cannot argue about certain facts in history, what date and time an event happened, but you can argue with opinions and points of view. This is not a bad thing, as long as both sides walk away from the argument learning something new and wanting to explore more. (Katya Lagun)

I agree with Allie French as to the teachers being restricted in their teaching. It is interesting to remember what it was like when we were in elementary school and then observing first hand what it is like now. I believe that we were most likely not allowed to be taught the truth about Christopher Columbus at such a young age but they did have more freedom than they do now. As a student we did so much more projects during elementary school than they do now. I recently discussed with a former teacher of mine why she was leaving her career and this was her main reason. She informed me that she had no room for creativity and that everything that was taught was coming from higher above and if she had “time” for anything else she could teach it but it was nearly impossible. I find it sad that as teachers we spend so much time and hard work on our schooling to learn different ideas and methods and ultimately you must teach for the curriculum that your future job expects you to. (Emily Hungerford)

I completely agree with Emily and Allie in this idea of being restricted as teachers. I feel that the teachers in the school system are being so strongly pressured by the higher authority to teach for the tests. The most important thing these days are for the numbers on the tests to go up. I feel like the teachers think that if they spend any time teaching things that they feel are important or straying away from the curriculum at all, or what is going to be on the tests, that they won't be able to fit it all in. I think that as teachers we need to know that our job is to create the future. The students in our classroom are the future presidents, and people who are going to run this world and it is important for them to know the truth about everything. I know that there are many different sides to the truth, but It is important to give the students the different sides of the truth then. (Allie Beardsworth)

In response to Elisabeth d topic of creationism: I currently work as a naturalist at Dinosaur State Park in rocky hill and it wasn't untill this job that I had to interact with anyone who was a true beleiver in creationism. Seasonaly it will never fail that an individual and even a whole family of creationist come to the park and choose to voice their beliefs. As was stated in Springs text by Reich on page 22 "life long learning is a necessity;" the reason why I included this quote is because of my interactions with these seperate groups point of view, I have had to teach myself about their views in order to un-biasedly stand behind the facts when havning a converstation with an individual. In today's classroom as Emily Hungerford has proposed; students have the choice to think outside the text and challenge the status quo. If there comes a day that an individual in my class has a pre-conceived notion that evolution is false I will simply ask the student to hear arguments from both sides of the spectrum and then make a scientific assumption.( (Tim Walczak)

 In response to Tim’s statement, about that being your first encounter with someone who had other beliefs than you, I feel that as educators in an every changing society, this type of encounter is going to become all that more common. I work in an extremely diverse elementary school, with diversity in religion, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic levels. I truly enjoy this type of environment and feel there is so much to learn from these students but it also makes me more aware and almost cautious as to not say something that might be considered offensive. I remember the days when there wasn’t a “politically correct” term for everything and I am almost afraid that we as a society, in effort to not make any sort of mistake while speaking, we will hold back and not express our thoughts or questions, even though they may be good-natured and honest questions. I feel as though these differences should be embraced! Our society is so unique that we have these cultural differences and yet as several classmates pointed out before, with so much effort put on test prep, all of these lessons are being forgotten. Teaching our students about their peers is crucial to them understanding each other. In December, there was controversy in Waterbury, CT, about a school principal who “banned all religious festivities and many decorations from the classroom since arriving at the school five years ago. Brown…explained to The Republican-American newspaper that state law mandates that a public school cannot knowingly exclude children…” Instead of saying “Seasons Greeting” or “Happy Hanukkah” the only thing that was allowed was “Happy Winter.” In no way do I wish to leave out or offend anyone to which this sort of issue may apply, but I just wonder what is next and how far is too far? I have included the website if anyone wishes to read further. (Laura Vagnini)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2933,579506,00.html

I also agree with what Tara and Sarah posted and that there is definitely not only one way to reach a child. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences are significant because all children can learn about the same topic in different ways however each student will be reached on a different level in the end. We’ve all been learning how important it is to differentiate instruction but being able to understand the importance of the different learning styles children have is when a good teacher can become a great teacher. This is when the traditional teacher has the ability to become a transformative teacher. I also agree with the point that Kristie F had made when she says that we teach in “diverse communities and diverse cultures." As a result we must incorporate “diverse teaching/learning approaches” as to motivate our students in order to achieve success. We as teachers need to concentrate more on HOW we teach rather than WHAT we teach. (Danielle Velodota)

Class discussions have been motivating as well as interesting. As we have learned from the spectrum in class there are three basic ways of viewing things. As Jessica R. brought up earlier if they were to become the norm would there be a radical? and if so what would happen to it? Kelly B goes on and speaks about how she feels offended that she didn't learned the truth in elementary and middle school. Then some of the other class mates branch out and mentioned some of the readings and how we learned that not anyone learns the same way. There are many levels and methods of teaching, as futures teachers we are encouraged by our professors to come up ways and adjust our lesson plans to the students needs. Also with all these teachers expectation and standardized testing teachers are limited on what to teach. Teachers are encouraged to stay in the liberal and conservative side of the spectrum, to be a radical teacher is like to teach about religion in class its not allowed. As Danielle well put it we want to be "Diverse teacher and have learning approaches" and as Dr. Love encourages in class to state our opinion, encourage discussion, get the mind rolling. Encourages to understand ALL perspective but not trying to change your beliefs. (Frances V)

"I definitely agree with the idea of how important it is to implement a variety of teaching styles in the classroom. While some students might be visual learners, others might happen to be hands on learners, which therefore requires the teacher to be able to successfully accomodate the needs of the students. Using different methods to approach one lesson or multiple lessons is not only in the student's best interest but in the teacher's best interest as well. Taking one's ability to look at something from a different perspective allows for the teacher himself/herself to develop further in terms of their own teaching beliefs and guidelines that they typically might follow. For instance, if a teacher fell on the political spectrum as Conservative without any question, but somehow how they were teaching or what they were teaching caused for them to have to alter their teaching approaches, then this opens up an opportunity for them to look back and reflect on "traditional" ways. Perhaps, this might also allow them to realize that some changes might indeed be needed, so then they will start to think more in a Liberal approach. It is important though to remember that one doesn't have to fall distinctly on a point within this spectrum (Liberal, Conservative, Radical)." (Mandy L)

By taking a look at the three teaching styles that are broken down in the notes above, I would find it difficult to not implement the transformative style the most in today's teaching world. I have had a lot of time observing and teaching in modern schools today and the one thing that I have noticed is the overwhelming diversity of the students. I am not talking just race, ethnicity and gender, but intellectually as well. In the physical eductaion area at CCSU, we are offen brought to light about students with special needs/disabilities and how it is important to be diversified as a teacher in todays world in order to be able to reach these students. Parents and administration are often demanding results and want to see first hand that their children are not being left behind. The inabilty to see differences in every student will only cause you as a teacher to not be able to connect with every student. Some issues may be difficult to see however. Children can be having trouble at home or not meeting sufficient nutrition intake daily. There are 100's of ways that kids can be negatively effected in their lives. The only way to able to help in most of these situations and possibly recognize certain issues is to be diversified. It is very important that you open your mind to the students and accept all possiblites. If a child isn't handing in their work on time consistantly, it might not be the best idea to just hand out zero after zero. Try and take a deeper look. Because there might be a child in need that is asking or needing help that you may be able to give. (Nick C)