Well, the semester is drawing to a close. Dress code is rearing its ugly head, senioritis is more than an imagined contagion, and EDC 533 is ending. So what have I learned?
1. Curriculum is a multi-faceted, ever-evolving, complex issue.
2. There are very few definite answers, but one thing I am 99% certain of is that we don't have it right yet, and in fact, are pretty far off.
3. Other countries do it better.
4. I could design awesome curriculum, if only... (fill in the appropriate acronym here) ...didn't tie my hands
5. There is a lot of GREAT INFORMATION out there, if you only know where to look!
6. Today's students are digital natives, and to ignore that is to deny them 21st century skills.
7. Blogging is fun - it opens the door to saying too much, perhaps - but it is a great way to communicate both objective and subjective information!
8. I am more certain than ever that I want to move into one of the various modes of administration
9. I am less certain than ever that I know what an administrator's role is... especially with regards to curriculum! This is such a complex, ever-changing topic, I am not sure if administration should take the lead or be a cheerleader.
10. I learned a lot, enjoyed blogging, and will MOST likely continue posting on this blog in the coming months/years. For example, I am in the middle of 3 professional resources right now - "Fair isn't always Equal," by DuFour "Differentiating in the Classroom,", and "Focus" by Schmoker. Why shouldn't I post about these after reading? It only makes sense!
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
How I Would Change Curriculum in my Classroom
Well, based on the readings and discussions in this class, I would like to change my classroom in several ways. I would like to incorporate more of the Partnership for the 21st Century Skills. I would like to stop sacrificing depth for breadth, and I would like to authentically use the ample technology I have at my fingertips.
As far as P21 goes, students are going to need to be ready for the current and future realities of their lives, and so schools that force them to step back in history do not accomplish much when it comes to this preparation. I think I have always integrated some component of environmental, global, and technological literacy, but one area I have fallen a bit short is collaboration. I tend to rely on a teacher-centered classroom, which I will say is not always bad. There is quite a bit of support for interactive lecture as a method for achieving results, especially with regards to science. This said, students are moving into a world where people collaborate - all the time. They email, phone, text, skype, facebook, blog, tweet, and so forth. It is fundamentally important that these communication and collaboration tools are used to accomplish work and learn in school, and I am working on how to incorporate them more appropriately in my classroom.
I have always felt like I have had to rush through an incredible amount of material in life science. From day one, we jump right in with the definition of characteristics of life, and we go full steam ahead until final exams. This is unfair though. There are so many opportunities and places where students can question, probe, and get creative. There are so many topics that could be unwrapped and delved into. It's a disservice to keep students from engaging in these - and it's much less fun to teach this way. I am taking our unit on genetics currently and getting into the ethics and moral dilemmas behind emerging genetic technology. I am presenting small groups with case studies supported with science, and asking them to evaluate the pros and cons, and develop and team statement to persuade the class. How fun!
And the final change I want to integrate right away is utilizing the technology at my fingertips. I have a ceiling-mounted projector, an interactive whiteboard, and students who have one-to-one computing. One of the lessons of this course was to stop doing the same old thing, but now using technology. Instead, we should begin doing new things in new ways. With this in mind, I am trying to make small changes. In the aforementioned genetic-ethics case studies, I would have normally printed out the PDF file and had students highlight. Instead, now, I am asking them to use annotations in the PDF and make color-coded notations about pros, cons, and questions. Granted, this is still annotating the text, but it is a new way to do so (and will avoid the "I left my paper at home" piece!) and in a way is a beginning.
I hope that many teachers are trying to make these changes. I feel like for the first 8 years of teaching, I perfected (as much as possible) an old-fashioned style of teaching. It is only in the past couple years I have really started to open my eyes and build in some different techniques. There is a whole world of teaching pedagogy, and it would be sad to have decided on the one true technique this early in my career! I am appreciative of the development of new ideas, and hope that as I become more engaged in my teaching, so too will my students.
As far as P21 goes, students are going to need to be ready for the current and future realities of their lives, and so schools that force them to step back in history do not accomplish much when it comes to this preparation. I think I have always integrated some component of environmental, global, and technological literacy, but one area I have fallen a bit short is collaboration. I tend to rely on a teacher-centered classroom, which I will say is not always bad. There is quite a bit of support for interactive lecture as a method for achieving results, especially with regards to science. This said, students are moving into a world where people collaborate - all the time. They email, phone, text, skype, facebook, blog, tweet, and so forth. It is fundamentally important that these communication and collaboration tools are used to accomplish work and learn in school, and I am working on how to incorporate them more appropriately in my classroom.
I have always felt like I have had to rush through an incredible amount of material in life science. From day one, we jump right in with the definition of characteristics of life, and we go full steam ahead until final exams. This is unfair though. There are so many opportunities and places where students can question, probe, and get creative. There are so many topics that could be unwrapped and delved into. It's a disservice to keep students from engaging in these - and it's much less fun to teach this way. I am taking our unit on genetics currently and getting into the ethics and moral dilemmas behind emerging genetic technology. I am presenting small groups with case studies supported with science, and asking them to evaluate the pros and cons, and develop and team statement to persuade the class. How fun!
And the final change I want to integrate right away is utilizing the technology at my fingertips. I have a ceiling-mounted projector, an interactive whiteboard, and students who have one-to-one computing. One of the lessons of this course was to stop doing the same old thing, but now using technology. Instead, we should begin doing new things in new ways. With this in mind, I am trying to make small changes. In the aforementioned genetic-ethics case studies, I would have normally printed out the PDF file and had students highlight. Instead, now, I am asking them to use annotations in the PDF and make color-coded notations about pros, cons, and questions. Granted, this is still annotating the text, but it is a new way to do so (and will avoid the "I left my paper at home" piece!) and in a way is a beginning.
I hope that many teachers are trying to make these changes. I feel like for the first 8 years of teaching, I perfected (as much as possible) an old-fashioned style of teaching. It is only in the past couple years I have really started to open my eyes and build in some different techniques. There is a whole world of teaching pedagogy, and it would be sad to have decided on the one true technique this early in my career! I am appreciative of the development of new ideas, and hope that as I become more engaged in my teaching, so too will my students.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Vexing Issues
I read this week's assignment, and was overjoyed by its relevance to where I am right now. If you didn't read my previous blog post, my school is in the unenviable position of qualifying for SIG funds, as we are listed in the bottom 10 performing schools for the state. While we don't necessarily have the lowest SAT scores, we have declined in performance while other schools have increased. So... the question becomes, do we apply for the SIG knowing all the hoops we will have to jump through to receive the funding?
There are four models for receiving school improvement grants. Two models - closure and restart - are not options in Maine. Closure would require another in-district option with room for students (not happening!) and restart would mean shutting the school down and re-starting it as a charter school. While that may become an option with the new governance, in my district it doesn't seem like the public would support turning over the public school to an EMO. EMO is an educational management organization that would come in and oversee the charter school process.
This leaves two models available for SIG approval - transformational or turnaround. The transformational model includes replacing the current school administrator, developing teacher and school leader effectiveness through changing the evaluation system, tying student achievement to teacher evaluations, reforming instruction, increasing instruction time, and providing support through positions like instructional coaches and literacy specialists. The turnaround model on the other hand requires replacing the school administrator as well as 50% of the faculty, adopting new governance, and re-designing instruction.
This is a vexing issue to me. First of all, the measure of student success is a poor measure. While I know we shouldn't blame it on the test, one cannot deny that even CollegeBoard recommended we don't use the SAT as our state measure of student achievement. This is not what the test was designed for, and we are literally laughed at at conferences when we discuss our schools being judged based on SAT data. I was part of the state's data coach training process this past year, and the trainers hired out of Massachusetts were appalled that we use the SAT to measure all students and gauge our school's effectiveness.
Secondly, when schools decide to apply for the funds, as they invariably do, one of the components of either plan is to replace the principal. While I can see replacing a poor leader, in the few cases I have come across, quite often a great leader is removed from his or her position, and an unknown variable is introduced into a struggling school. We are going to be losing an experienced, caring, motivated and motivating individual who knows our struggles, successes, and history. Without knowing who will apply and be part of the candidate pool, I can say with confidence that we will either promote from within the system (which is not really the intended transformation intended in the grant plan) or gain a totally new leader who will need to learn us, learn our school, learn our students, and learn our challenges before they can effect change - if they can effect change. The unfortunate fact is that we often lack candidates for any administrative position - we cannot find a superintendent right now, so now we will be in the position of needing district leadership as well as building leadership!
I am sorely vexed by this issue. I understand the intent of SIG and AYP - I understand the inadequacy of some student public education opportunities, and the inequalities from school to school or student group to student group. I believe there is a way to bring all schools up to a higher level of achievement, but I truly do not believe this is the answer, for so many reasons. On the state level and the federal level, there are some major issues with how NCLB measures schools and utilizes its sticks and carrots to "motivate."
There are four models for receiving school improvement grants. Two models - closure and restart - are not options in Maine. Closure would require another in-district option with room for students (not happening!) and restart would mean shutting the school down and re-starting it as a charter school. While that may become an option with the new governance, in my district it doesn't seem like the public would support turning over the public school to an EMO. EMO is an educational management organization that would come in and oversee the charter school process.
This leaves two models available for SIG approval - transformational or turnaround. The transformational model includes replacing the current school administrator, developing teacher and school leader effectiveness through changing the evaluation system, tying student achievement to teacher evaluations, reforming instruction, increasing instruction time, and providing support through positions like instructional coaches and literacy specialists. The turnaround model on the other hand requires replacing the school administrator as well as 50% of the faculty, adopting new governance, and re-designing instruction.
This is a vexing issue to me. First of all, the measure of student success is a poor measure. While I know we shouldn't blame it on the test, one cannot deny that even CollegeBoard recommended we don't use the SAT as our state measure of student achievement. This is not what the test was designed for, and we are literally laughed at at conferences when we discuss our schools being judged based on SAT data. I was part of the state's data coach training process this past year, and the trainers hired out of Massachusetts were appalled that we use the SAT to measure all students and gauge our school's effectiveness.
Secondly, when schools decide to apply for the funds, as they invariably do, one of the components of either plan is to replace the principal. While I can see replacing a poor leader, in the few cases I have come across, quite often a great leader is removed from his or her position, and an unknown variable is introduced into a struggling school. We are going to be losing an experienced, caring, motivated and motivating individual who knows our struggles, successes, and history. Without knowing who will apply and be part of the candidate pool, I can say with confidence that we will either promote from within the system (which is not really the intended transformation intended in the grant plan) or gain a totally new leader who will need to learn us, learn our school, learn our students, and learn our challenges before they can effect change - if they can effect change. The unfortunate fact is that we often lack candidates for any administrative position - we cannot find a superintendent right now, so now we will be in the position of needing district leadership as well as building leadership!
I am sorely vexed by this issue. I understand the intent of SIG and AYP - I understand the inadequacy of some student public education opportunities, and the inequalities from school to school or student group to student group. I believe there is a way to bring all schools up to a higher level of achievement, but I truly do not believe this is the answer, for so many reasons. On the state level and the federal level, there are some major issues with how NCLB measures schools and utilizes its sticks and carrots to "motivate."
Curriculum 21 - Chapter 11 thoughts
"If our children are to grow up to make important contributions to society, it is essential that we provide them with powerful tools and experiences across the curriculum. This goal will require a new culture of teaching and learning that engages students as contributors."
I think this is a wonderful summary of this reading. The tools are out there. The students know it! If we want them to be engaged, we need to speak their language, and if we want them to be able to contribute as adults we have to teach them the mode and means for doing so.
I was struck by this today, in particular. Our school is in the unfortunate circumstance of qualifying for SIG funds. While not the "lowest performing" school in the state, we are a Title I school that took funding and didn't show an improvement. Our school board has decided to apply for the grant, and so the student body was informed of the decision today. They understand, now, that means removing our current principal from the position and hiring a new school leader. What was the response?
Quite appropriately, I believe, students were upset to not have a voice in the decision that is facing their school. They created ballots for students to vote whether they would take the grant or decline the funds, had they been asked. An enterprising student created a Facebook survey asking students for input - students can select multiple choices such as "we don't need the money," "we should have a say," and "we should keep Mr......".
While I am saddened by the position we are in, I am so pleased with the engagement of the student body in this process. They are struggling, right alongside teachers, with what this means for our school. They want to know how they can be heard, and they are really trying to get advice on how to do it in an appropriate way so that they are taken seriously. While walk-outs and other things have been mentioned, I have heard students tell each other that these aren't the ways to go about being heard - how dramatic is this peer-to-peer coaching that is going on!
I know the Facebooking has only just begun when it comes to this issue, but I am certainly pleased thus far with how students have reacted - they are really invested in the outcome, and trying to approach it as best as possible. This is one small tool (Facebook) that they have taught themselves how to use - and have harnessed as a communication tool for civic discourse. Wouldn't it be amazing if we had taught them to use these other tools too?
I think this is a wonderful summary of this reading. The tools are out there. The students know it! If we want them to be engaged, we need to speak their language, and if we want them to be able to contribute as adults we have to teach them the mode and means for doing so.
I was struck by this today, in particular. Our school is in the unfortunate circumstance of qualifying for SIG funds. While not the "lowest performing" school in the state, we are a Title I school that took funding and didn't show an improvement. Our school board has decided to apply for the grant, and so the student body was informed of the decision today. They understand, now, that means removing our current principal from the position and hiring a new school leader. What was the response?
Quite appropriately, I believe, students were upset to not have a voice in the decision that is facing their school. They created ballots for students to vote whether they would take the grant or decline the funds, had they been asked. An enterprising student created a Facebook survey asking students for input - students can select multiple choices such as "we don't need the money," "we should have a say," and "we should keep Mr......".
While I am saddened by the position we are in, I am so pleased with the engagement of the student body in this process. They are struggling, right alongside teachers, with what this means for our school. They want to know how they can be heard, and they are really trying to get advice on how to do it in an appropriate way so that they are taken seriously. While walk-outs and other things have been mentioned, I have heard students tell each other that these aren't the ways to go about being heard - how dramatic is this peer-to-peer coaching that is going on!
I know the Facebooking has only just begun when it comes to this issue, but I am certainly pleased thus far with how students have reacted - they are really invested in the outcome, and trying to approach it as best as possible. This is one small tool (Facebook) that they have taught themselves how to use - and have harnessed as a communication tool for civic discourse. Wouldn't it be amazing if we had taught them to use these other tools too?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
This Week's Reading
As I was hunting around the resources this week, I spend some time on the Learning First website, Public School Insights. I stumbled across the article on the International Summit in Education, and found it very interesting. While we are talking about the influence of various organizations on education, this article highlighted some differences between education in the United States and education in countries that perform well on tests such as PISA. I am persuaded that these factors highly influence the quality of education in as significant a way as unions, boards, and other groups! The article says:
"It’s been more than a week since the U.S. Department of Education sponsored International Summit on the Teaching Profession took place in New York City. For those of us who were observers, the conversation was valuable but the extended time spent sitting and listening challenged our ability to absorb all that was being exchanged. However, a few themes kept resurfacing:
* In countries with high performing students as measured by the PISA tests, the teaching profession is held in high esteem and attracts the strongest students to its preparation programs.
* Conversely, those same countries support a highly selective process for identifying potential teachers and accepting them into teacher preparation programs.
* Once on the job, teachers in high performing countries are given an average of 15 hours/week to confer with colleagues, observe others’ classrooms, and participate in professional learning activities.
* In countries where students score well on international tests, teachers’ salaries are on par with engineers, doctors, and other professionals.
* In all the countries that participated in the summit, teachers are unionized.
In countries where student achievement is high, teachers are given a great deal of autonomy to deliver instruction in ways that reach students with a variety of learning styles. Further, this autonomy is important to teachers and a mark of their professionalism. Even in countries with strong central education departments and national goals and standards, schools and teachers are free to craft the instructional support in ways that fit their individual teaching styles while meeting the needs of the students with whom they work.
The following countries sent representatives to participate in the conversation with US educators and policymakers:
Finland, Norway, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, Estonia, Slovenia, Sweden, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan
While simultaneous translation was provided for Brazil, China, and Japan, the other education ministers delivered their reports and remarks in near perfect English….humbling to those of us who aren’t multi-lingual. The real test of impact from this summit (a proposal was made by U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, that it become an annual event held around the world), will be the extent to which we act on what we heard. This will require a collaborative effort from all those present and the educators they represent and a commitment to respectful dialogue to determine the difficult but necessary changes the U.S. education system needs to make to reach the ranks of “high performing” countries."
To me this is a list not just of factors that make education effective in these countries, but also a list of all the ways we could work to make public education work better here. What if teachers were paid more? More people would teach! This also might lead to a higher caliber of teacher, as many good teachers leave the profession due to a lack of professional recognition and compensation. Imagine if teachers were held in the same esteem, and paid the same salary range, as engineers and doctors? More people would want to teach, so enter the highly selective teacher preparation programs. Additionally, I cannot imagine what teaching would be like if I had 15 hours of collaboration time each week! This is a phenomenal amount of time dedicated to continued development and improvement in instruction, whereas I often feel that if I desire to do that kind of work, it must happen on my own time, such as giving up prep periods or spending vacation time working on training and professional development.
This was an enlightening read, and highlighted some of the key differences that I've been feeling for some time now. I hope we can take some lessons from these successful countries.
"It’s been more than a week since the U.S. Department of Education sponsored International Summit on the Teaching Profession took place in New York City. For those of us who were observers, the conversation was valuable but the extended time spent sitting and listening challenged our ability to absorb all that was being exchanged. However, a few themes kept resurfacing:
* In countries with high performing students as measured by the PISA tests, the teaching profession is held in high esteem and attracts the strongest students to its preparation programs.
* Conversely, those same countries support a highly selective process for identifying potential teachers and accepting them into teacher preparation programs.
* Once on the job, teachers in high performing countries are given an average of 15 hours/week to confer with colleagues, observe others’ classrooms, and participate in professional learning activities.
* In countries where students score well on international tests, teachers’ salaries are on par with engineers, doctors, and other professionals.
* In all the countries that participated in the summit, teachers are unionized.
In countries where student achievement is high, teachers are given a great deal of autonomy to deliver instruction in ways that reach students with a variety of learning styles. Further, this autonomy is important to teachers and a mark of their professionalism. Even in countries with strong central education departments and national goals and standards, schools and teachers are free to craft the instructional support in ways that fit their individual teaching styles while meeting the needs of the students with whom they work.
The following countries sent representatives to participate in the conversation with US educators and policymakers:
Finland, Norway, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, Estonia, Slovenia, Sweden, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan
While simultaneous translation was provided for Brazil, China, and Japan, the other education ministers delivered their reports and remarks in near perfect English….humbling to those of us who aren’t multi-lingual. The real test of impact from this summit (a proposal was made by U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, that it become an annual event held around the world), will be the extent to which we act on what we heard. This will require a collaborative effort from all those present and the educators they represent and a commitment to respectful dialogue to determine the difficult but necessary changes the U.S. education system needs to make to reach the ranks of “high performing” countries."
To me this is a list not just of factors that make education effective in these countries, but also a list of all the ways we could work to make public education work better here. What if teachers were paid more? More people would teach! This also might lead to a higher caliber of teacher, as many good teachers leave the profession due to a lack of professional recognition and compensation. Imagine if teachers were held in the same esteem, and paid the same salary range, as engineers and doctors? More people would want to teach, so enter the highly selective teacher preparation programs. Additionally, I cannot imagine what teaching would be like if I had 15 hours of collaboration time each week! This is a phenomenal amount of time dedicated to continued development and improvement in instruction, whereas I often feel that if I desire to do that kind of work, it must happen on my own time, such as giving up prep periods or spending vacation time working on training and professional development.
This was an enlightening read, and highlighted some of the key differences that I've been feeling for some time now. I hope we can take some lessons from these successful countries.
Toes in the Water
After reading Bill Ferriter's "Taking the Digital Plunge" I had the opportunity to reflect on my own immersion in the digital world. I have a Facebook account. I have two blogs - this, and a half-hearted one on my half-hearted experience with being a vegetarian. I own a laptop, desktop, iPod, iPad, cell phone, XBox, and Wii. I use a digital projector, almost daily. I grade online, email students, parents, and co-workers, and search for images and ideas on a daily basis. I check the weather online, see news updates, and have replaced my stacks of books on my nightstand with a slimmer, neater, digital library. I have gone digital, but am I plunging? Or am I sitting in the shallow end of the pool dunking my toes?
While I have all the tools and use them frequently, I am not entirely sure that I have plunged into the digital world. Granted, ten years ago, much of what I do would be foreign to think about. Grading online? Instant access to my gradebook by parents and students? Downloading texts, movies, music, and shows? These are all very new, and very useful technologies. What Bill Ferriter got me thinking about is something we have been discussing since the first week - though I am using this new digital world, I am still largely doing old things in new ways.
Mr. Ferriter talked about his use of technology. He has students use VoiceThread to have conversations online about course content. He links to educators in countries all over the world, and encourages his students to link to students in other countries to get use to the idea of working with someone half a world away. He follows blogs and shares with his students and co-workers what he learns from them. Bill has indeed plunged.
I think, however, it is a learning process. Crawling comes before walking. Doggie-paddling comes before swimming the backstroke. You have to get in the pool before you can even attempt to swim. At this point, I am happy to be in the pool and thinking about taking the first strokes of a swim. Maybe I'll flounder a bit, maybe my students will flounder around with me, but I don't think we'll go under, and I am pretty confident that through floundering we will grow more comfortable in the digital depths and eventually find ourselves swimming with confidence.
While I have all the tools and use them frequently, I am not entirely sure that I have plunged into the digital world. Granted, ten years ago, much of what I do would be foreign to think about. Grading online? Instant access to my gradebook by parents and students? Downloading texts, movies, music, and shows? These are all very new, and very useful technologies. What Bill Ferriter got me thinking about is something we have been discussing since the first week - though I am using this new digital world, I am still largely doing old things in new ways.
Mr. Ferriter talked about his use of technology. He has students use VoiceThread to have conversations online about course content. He links to educators in countries all over the world, and encourages his students to link to students in other countries to get use to the idea of working with someone half a world away. He follows blogs and shares with his students and co-workers what he learns from them. Bill has indeed plunged.
I think, however, it is a learning process. Crawling comes before walking. Doggie-paddling comes before swimming the backstroke. You have to get in the pool before you can even attempt to swim. At this point, I am happy to be in the pool and thinking about taking the first strokes of a swim. Maybe I'll flounder a bit, maybe my students will flounder around with me, but I don't think we'll go under, and I am pretty confident that through floundering we will grow more comfortable in the digital depths and eventually find ourselves swimming with confidence.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Al Gore, Meet Heidi Hayes Jacobs...
This week's reading united two of my true loves - sustainability and education. As a high school science teacher, sustainability is one of my major emphases, no matter the content area I am working in. Life science, physical, earth, or chemistry - sustainability of our planet and of ecosystems is a critical, overarching idea that can be and should be incorporated as much as possible.
So, in reading this week's assignment I was thrilled to see it included in a discussion of education as well! I see many parallels between the world of education and the study of natural resources, and it is refreshing to know I am not the only one. They can be analogous to each other, and can also assist in understanding one or the other. Hopefully we can learn solutions about both soon...
So, in the spirit of David Letterman (or Johnny Carson, really) here are my top five reasons why the planet's peril is similar to education today:
1) We are relying on old technology, or using new technology to do old things. Al Gore said it in "Inconvenient Truth" - old technology + old methods = predictable consequences. New technology + old methods = unforseen consequences. We can't keep doing the same old thing in the same old way, and we also can't try to do the same old thing but just do it with new tools. To really move ahead, we need to have new methods that correlate with our new tools.
2) There are things that we KNOW will work (solar, geothermal, year-long school, changing the daily schedule to meet kids' developmental needs, the metric system) but they cost so much so switch over to, we haven't done so. Our decision needs to be less of a quick-fix situation (keep doing what we're doing, just tweak it to make it work) and more of a long-term solution (pay now for what we know will pay off later).
3) The kids know it. Students know that school doesn't work the way it should - we've all seen motivation flag, they know that old-fashioned teaching doesn't prepare them for the world they live in now, never mind tomorrow. They know that giving them the new tools but only allowing them to do old-fashioned types of work doesn't really teach them what they need to know. They also know the global sustainability piece - that we've done major damage, perhaps irreparable although I certainly hope not, and something major must be done to try to maintain a sustainable planet for the future.
4) The frog example from Al Gore is perfect for either scenario. In the frog example, he explains that if you put a frog in normal temperature water, and then slowly crank it to boil, the frog won't jump out - it will boil to death. However, if you put it in boiling water, it will immediately jump out. People are the same way - we recognize a bad situation if we are first confronted with it. However, if things start out fine and slowly degrade, we are slow to recognize the danger. We won't jump out - we'll just sit there and cook ourselves. As Al Gore states, it's "important to rescue the frog!"
5) If you've seen the movie, there is a small cartoon clip about global warming. In the clip, the government's solution is to drop a giant ice cube in the ocean every so often to cool things off temporarily. Don't we have the same sort of educational ice cubes? Whether you think NCLB, Common Core, State Assessment Systems, Title I... there are government-designed fixes for problems without true examination of solving the problem. Throwing more money at something, or holding a very large stick and a nice little carrot are temporary fixes for a situation that needs a true solution.
Analogies aside, I am a major proponent for sustainability in global resources, and feel guilt when I accidentally throw away a paperclip, or take the less gas-conserving vehicle all the way to Bangor from Ellsworth. Applying this to education, I think sustainability should also be a focus - how can we conserve resources? How can we preserve students? How can we use better technology, better methods, and better systems to re-design a sustainable educational system? After all, someone has to rescue the frog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)