peanutbutter&janie

I thought these articles were quite interesting because I have witnessed some of the things mentioned. The tuition at Baruch increased dramatically within one year and I also remember them cutting the Vallone Scholarship. Someone also told me that tuition was going to continuously increase. (Which makes me glad that I only have a semester left) I thought it was ironic how people used to be concerned about high school dropout rates. However, it seems that they are now concerned about the increase of high school graduates. Who knew that the increase of high school graduates was going to be considered a problem?

Since there are more and more high school students graduating and enrolling in public higher education, there are more cuts. Funds are going to Medicare and there are more cuts in public education. Even in one of the articles, it said that schools were being shut down because there was not enough funds to support it. It is sad to see that students are finally doing their part as students but the government is slowly abandoning these kids. The government is always stressing about how education is so important, however, I feel like that education is the first place they make cuts in. I know it is not the government’s fault but I feel like they always prioritize other programs before education.

Some questions that came to mind was:

Is it really the government’s responsibility to provide so much funding for students in public higher education?

Do you think that the government should prioritize education programs? Do you feel it is wrong for them to cut education funds to increase funds for Medicare?

 

 

 

Janie’s part:

Through numerous research, it is safe to say that family involvement does make a difference. Even a little bit of family involvement can make an impact on a student’s daily life. Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, and Davis said that parental involvement is indeed a necessity. However, we had several class discussions on how some parents just do not have the time to be involved in their child’s education.

Do you feel like it is an absolute necessity and therefore should be a priority in a parent’s life ?

Researchers claimed that there were many benefits of parental involvement. It made an impact on a child’s academic motivation and has a great effect on the child’s ability to learn. Not only that but it helped them give an appreciation for learning. It also improved academic performance, improved school behavior, and decreased dropout rates. Attendances rates increased and suspension rates decreased. Before reading these articles and journals, I actually did not know how much impact parental involvement made on a child’s education. Seeing all the benefits that parental involvement can have, I think it should be a necessity. I honestly did not think parental involvement was necessary and did not think parents being involved would even make a difference. However, it does make a difference and parents should invest even just a little bit of time to be involved in their child’s education.

Also, researchers found out that it is extremely important to make sure parents feel welcomed. This sense of welcome actually has a direct effect on their involvement in their child’s education. Most of the time, language and cultural barriers can make parents reluctant to get involved in schools. In one of the New York Times article, they talked about a school in Jericho and how 30% of the school’s population consisted of Asians. Also, 70% of Asians made up the orchestra band. However, you couldn’t really spot too many Asian parents in a school concert or in a PTA meeting. Also, one Chinese mother said friends told her not to bothers with P.T.A meetings because “it’s run by a bunch of Jewish ladies”. I feel like the Jericho school did a good job in attacking this problem by luring these Asian parents to get involved by offering free English classes.

Misconceptions also was a big issue in the effectiveness of family involvement efforts. Misconception links to mistrust so it is important to identify and resolve the misconceptions. I agree that it is crucial in forming a good relationship between the parent and the teacher. I feel like it is both the parent and teacher’s responsibility to do all they can to give the child a quality education.

However, do you feel like one should be more liable and responsible when a child is falling behind? Teachers blame the home, while parents blame the school when a problem occurs.

There are suggested ways to increase parental involvement. This includes: schools helping parents with parenting, encouraging learning at home, keeping contact and communicating consistently with the parents, encouraging volunteering, and allowing parents to get involved in decision making.

However, do you feel like we are pressuring parents way too much to get involved? Or are these reasonable expectations from parents?

Sources:

http://csmstu01.csm.edu/st03/dwagner/new_page_2.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/education/12parents.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ParentInvolvement.pdf

–Janie

In chapter 3, it discussed the use of AYP. I agree that it is a ridiculous scheme. I feel like it is useless in helping the students that really do need the help. Also, it doesn’t count the progress of a student. It’s either pass or fail based on a passing score, and nothing else counts. It’s unfair that the NCLB is forcing students that aren’t fluent in English, to take these standardized tests in English and get penalized for it.

I mentioned it in the previous blog, but I feel like too much of these requirements to pass standardized tests are useless. I admit that standardized tests can be helpful if used at a minimum and if they used those results to actually do something to help the students. Instead, they are just testing and testing, and just penalizing the students that can’t keep up. I feel like schools are becoming so obsessed over standardized testing and putting so much weight on them. It seems like nothing else matters, and the quality of education is deteriorating. Students are too busy trying to master the skill of test-taking, that they are no longer learning the material for what it is. They are too busy memorizing loads of information that students no longer get to really understand what they are memorizing.

Also, in this chapter it mentioned how they are making more time for testing and children are reading less books. I feel like they are spending so much money on making tests and evaluating students, but they are not using that money to help the kids improve.

In Chapter 4, they discussed about how there is less and less public participation in schools. I don’t fully agree with how there should be more public involvement from our communities in schools. I feel like it is a bit dangerous to give the communities a lot of autonomy. I feel like it is better to trust crucial decisions on people that are specialized in the field. Even though the chapter calls these people “strangers”, I feel like for the most part, the government and president do have good intentions and direct participation from the community can cause chaos. But I agree that feedback from the public is a must.

 

Some questions to think about:

The book mentions how students that haven’t mastered the English language, are required to take the standardized tests. Do you feel like it is unfair if these students DID NOT have to take these tests? If these students were exempt from taking these tests, wouldn’t it be unfair for all the other students?

How do you personally decide which students are “well-educated”? Do you really consider the students that are able to do well on standardized testing but slacked off throughout high school, well educated?

 

There were a lot of interesting points that were brought up in this chapter. I completely agree with the point about how when students actually do well on given tests, the students are not given a pat on the back nor the teachers are congratulated. The first thing they do is make the tests harder. It is almost like no one is ever satisfied with the results. When students do well, the public start to question whether the exams are too easy. When students do poorly, the public starts pointing fingers and criticizing the quality of the schools.

This chapter also goes on to point out the flaws about the No Child Left Behind Act. I think that the No Child Left Behind Act is unrealistic. I feel like with all these standardized testing, students lose the meaning of learning. I feel like as years go on, students are required to take more and more standardized testings and they are wasting so much time preparing for a test and taking a test, that they don’t have the time to really learn and enjoy it. I also agree with the book on how the board of education goes through all that trouble testing and evaluating each student and picking out the ones that are falling behind, but they don’t do much to help. They spend more money and so much time testing them and embarrassing them than using that money to help the students.

I went to a korean SAT summer school when I was a Junior in H.S. We had 2 tests every single day and we were physically punished and embarrassed by our peers if we did poorly on those 2 tests. I feel like this can relate to the concept of NCLB very well. The SAT school spent more time testing us than actually TEACHING us. Instead, I spent all my time there being tested and being punished. I felt like I learned absolutely nothing and my time there was not used efficiently at all. I felt like the people who needed the help were just discouraged and were not given any helping hand at all.

As I was reading, some of these questions came to mind:

Will there ever be an alternative that everyone is satisfied with? Do you feel like standardized testing actually helps more than it hurts students?

Do you feel like standardized testing does push and motivate students to study and in result learn something?

Or do you think students can do that without the use of standardized testing?

 

 

People were concerned about the quality of American schools due to the increasing global competition. Scores are much lower in the U.S schools compared to other nations and therefore, those nations were a possible threat to America. There were also debate over who should control public schools. Lessinger talks about how the community shouldn’t have any control over the schools. He used the model of a hospital by saying that the participation of the community to make decisions in surgery and such was absolutely insane and dangerous. He talks about how this model can be applied to education and how we need professional knowledge to make decisions in the school. I agree with Lessinger’s point of view. I feel like there needs to be educational experts to make decisions and we shouldn’t leave these decisions to the public. Also, schools were required to annually publish standardized test scores. I feel like there is an increase of pressure to the teachers and students, and the pressure can be a good thing. Standardized tests can motivate teachers and students to push for better grades. Although standardized tests can not always measure a student’s real intelligence, (due to bad test taking skills and such), it is the best alternative.

The goals of the schools were changing as time went on. In the beginning there were the common schools where the main goal was to reduce class warfare. However, we are now more focused on reaching our goal of educating our students to compete in the global economy. I think it is amazing how schools started and what the goals for schools were.

This last chapter pretty much summed the entire book up and mentioned topics from the previous chapters. It was interesting how even though there was a big cultural divide between the Republican and Democratic parties, they both had that same goal of trying to improve schools for the sake of competitive advantages.

Do you feel that the goals of the American schools (being globally competitive) should be the main goals? Or do you feel like we have lost the true purpose of education?

Do you feel that the goals of the American schools will change over time again?

It was pretty heart-breaking to read about what the students in these “poor schools” had to go through. They had to learn in an overcrowded classroom, with low ceilings, and in a stuffy room without air condition in the summer and heater in the winter. It made me realize that I definitely took some of these things for granted. These kids were expected to learn in horrible conditions with 15 year old textbooks. With overcrowding in a classroom and the conditions of the school, it is a wonder if a child can learn anything. It is sad to read that these kids start to lose hope and drop out of school.

I can’t blame the kids for wanting to drop out. If I was in their position, I would find it hard to even focus in school. Instead of blaming these kids for “being lazy” and blaming them for ending up in the streets, there should be things done to help these schools that need funding.

Rich schools in towns like Glencoe and Winnetka had more than enough. They had superior labs and up to date technology. Also, had seven gyms and an Olympic pool. Schools like these had an average class size of 24. It is pretty jaw dropping when you compare these kind of schools with the poorer schools. In the poor schools, the teachers had to carry around the lab equipment because there was a lack of space. They also used the gym as a classroom.

While reading this section of the book, some thoughts came into mind:

Do you feel like students from the poor schools have a right to complain about the physical conditions of the school? Or do you feel like they shouldn’t complain because it’s technically free and it’s coming out of the pockets of taxpayers ?

Would you be willing to pay more tax for the benefits of students in the urban school? Do you feel like it’s the society responsibility to do  something about it?

It’s really a shame for these kids because some of the kids have so much potential in the poorer schools, yet they can never reach their fullest due to the conditions of the school and the neighborhood.

I thought this book was quite interesting. The first part defines what racism is and how people use that term and the word prejudice interchangeably. The author talks about how those two words are not the same. Also, the author talks about how racism is learned and we are not born racist. I agree with that statement and I never realized how racist people around me were (including my parents and close friends). When I had a friend over who was not asian, my parents would ask why I am hanging out with her. Also, friends would ask why I was hanging out with people that were not Korean. It actually blew my mind how even in a melting pot like America, people are still ignorant.

The author talks about how the black kids didn’t all start out at the same table. In elementary school, you see all different races interacting with each other. I agree with this. In elementary school, I had many friends that were from all different racial backgrounds and we never noticed that we were different. However, in high school, I saw a table strictly with black students sitting together. I always wondered why this was so. Also, the security guards always seem to pick on those students and blame them for starting a fight or a ruckus.

The author also talks about how society has a certain perception on black people. Even though people are not directly being racist, through certain actions, they are indirectly being racist. For example, women hold their purses a little tighter, police officers harasses them, and people lock their doors when a black kid passes. Black students start to realize that they are being treated differently and most of the time, unfairly. It is shocking to still see black people being treated unfairly. I remember when me and my friends needed to take a cab, a cab passed by a black man who waved his hands first, and came to us instead. The cab ignored the black man even though he clearly hailed the cab first. The black man then came over and they got into a quarrel. It was shocking to see how black people were being treated even at this modern day. So the author’s depiction on how they are still being treated is very true.

Also, the author talks about how a black student is being treated unfairly by a teacher and she tells her white friend about it. However, the white friend just responds by saying that the teacher probably didn’t mean it. The white friend does not understand how it feels to be black because they are never inaccurately accused of anything or being mistreated for no reason. The author explains how only black people knows how a black person feels like and what they go through. So they end up sitting in the same cafeteria and hanging out with other blacks who understands.

I agree with what the author is saying. I feel like I would never know how a black friend feels like when they are being mistreated because of their skin color. Only someone who have experienced the same mistreatment because of their skin color would know how it really feels like.

Also, if a black student did very well in school, people would say, “Oh you are not really black”. And black students didn’t want to be separated from their black friends so they reject being in honors and tried to “play down their academic success”. However, a black student named Jon did not do anything that a “typical black person” would do (basketball, cross-country). He wanted to prove to his white peers that not all black people had to do those things.

While reading all this, certain questions came to mind:

Does having all these stereotypes and indirect racism encourage the black students to act in the way of how society already views them? For example, in my high school, a black student told me that security guards harasses him and accuses him for no reason. So the black student says that it doesn’t matter how he acts because they are going to treat him the same either way.

How did some stereotypes come about? Do you feel like there is some truth in stereotypes? Like how asians are good at math, blacks are good at sports, white people are intelligent? What are some ways that we can stop stereotypes? Do you think educating people on racism and stereotypes will stop it or do you think it would encourage it even more?

There were several interesting sections in Chapter 14. I thought the concept of the “model minority” was quite funny. Because Asian-americans went from having this image of a yellow peril to being an example to other nationalities. It was interesting how they were suddenly praising the Asian population for achieving the American dream without any help. We still have this image of Asians today. They are seen as having traits of obedience, neatness, self-discipline and high achievement motivation. It was sad to see that even though Asian-Americans were able to do well in school, they did not receive incomes that matched their educational achievement. Their incomes were lower than a white male. Their status in society were limited even though they have reached a high level in education. In previous chapters, they stressed about the importance of education and how school predicted one’s future. However, the level of performance of Asian-Americans in school did not reflect their future because they were limited by the effects of racism.

Asian-Americans also were bullied by their peers and struggled to keep up in school because of the language barrier. The chapter talked about how they were removed from their regular classes to receive English education. And then they were required to attend regular classes that were taught only in English. I remember when I was in elementary school, I saw other kids being pulled out of class to learn English. I always thought about how hard it must have been for them. For one, they are being pulled out of regular classes, so they would miss material and lectures during that time. And two, they probably were struggling to keep up because of the language barrier. However, even though I think it is a good idea to have a bilingual teacher and having the class in another language, I think having a teacher who just speaks English is beneficial as well. It is because the child will be forced to learn English and hear directions/text in English. I know a friend who moved from Korea when we were in 6th grade. She couldn’t speak English, however, being in the class and hearing the language, interacting with her peers, she was able to learn the language very quickly. I think of it as going to a different country and being forced to interact and listen to a different language. Yes, it may be hard and you might be out of your comfort zone, however, people who continuously listen to a new language usually learns that language fairly quickly.

Do you feel like it is a better idea to have bilingual teachers and have teachers who would teach school material in their native language? Or do you feel like it will be more beneficial in the long run to be forced to be taught in English? Which do you think is more effective in learning the language?

Also, another section of the book that I thought was interesting was “The Coloring of Textbook Town”. I mentioned this a couple of times in my previous blogs. Textbooks usually left out important history to make America look good. Textbooks back then left out black history and the history of slavery. I think that it is dangerous to omit  this “dark” history out of the textbooks. Even though it is something that America is not proud of , it is crucial to have this in the textbooks because history can always repeat itself. We need to learn from the mistakes from the past and analyze this part of history.

Do you think high school history textbooks now are still a slightly bias ? I know my textbook in high school was bit bias toward Americans. Do you feel like it is better to omit some of the history so that Americans can develop a nationalist feeling? Or do you feel like it is dangerous to omit some  part of history in the textbook and push for nationalism?

I think the option of going into military and receiving support for tuition, books, and living expenses is a good idea. For those who just didn’t have the money to attend college, this was a golden opportunity to go to college. The military is definitely a more attractive path with these incentives. I remember this girl who served in the army and shared her thoughts on her experience. She said that it taught her discipline and survival methods. She also had a free ride to college, with her books, housing, and tuition all paid. On top of that, she said that she was still receiving checks because she was a veteran. She basically concluded that she feels like everyone should seize the opportunity of being in the army, and how she is pretty much set for her college life. Not only was it beneficial for the military since people chose to be there, but also it led to an increase of college enrollment in the 1945. “1,013,000 veterans attended college, doubling the existing college population”.

So in 1950 , there were criticism about the poor quality of American schools. Bestor believed that professional educators were responsible for the “anti-intellectual quality of American schools”. They also mentioned in this chapter about how the school was failing to identify and adequately educate talented youth as future scientists and engineers. I feel like they were putting so much emphasis on math and engineering. They put so much importance in finding and developing students who have potential to become scientists and engineers that it almost seem like other fields are less important.

Do you feel like it was unfair to put science and engineering on a pedestal back then, (and even now) or do you think it was logic to do so because these are more  of the important fields and jobs in the society/military?

The section about educational television was quite interesting. I feel like Lesser’s point of view was a little too extreme in using t.v to “rescue the entire educational system”. He even went to the extent of arguing that t.v can be somewhat superior to the public school. I do agree that educational t.v and programs are helpful for educating young kids, but t.v lack essential things that cannot be taught like in a public school.

Lesser also said that television is an ideal educator because the child learns without fear of a public or teacher. Also, the child can control the learning process of a switch. I completely disagree with this statement because I feel like a public school teaches a child to get used to be around others and teachers. Learning how to adapt and face these fears and humiliation is also a learning process in my opinion. Kids need to socialize and ask questions from a real human teacher while it is impossible to do so when being taught by an object. I feel like these educational programs can be a nice supplement to public schooling, but I do not feel like t.v can alone fully teach kids.

Do you agree with Lesser’s perspective on how the television is an ideal educator? Do you feel that t.v has helped society to distinguish on what is right and wrong and helped steer them in the right direction (by showing how the good guys always wins, cheaters/murders/thieves always get caught) ? Did you agree with Lessor’s argument on how television can provide models and show what consequences might result from an action? Did t.v shows really affect children behavior and somewhat shape their characters and moral thinking?

I found this chapter very interesting. I never realized how movies can make an impact on a child’s life and how they were once (and maybe still are) competition with the schools for children’s mind. There was an experiment where one group was made to drink coffee, another group was sleep deprived, and another group was taken to the movies before going to bed. I was shocked to see that the group of children that went to the movies before bed was disturbed as much as the other two groups. I actually never really realized the effectiveness of movies.Studies depicted how it affected the health, behavior, and attitudes of children.

It was also interesting to see how the censorship code came about. The code would ensure that movies were a good influence on society, and used it to be “morally uplifting” instead of “morally degrading”. I think this was a good idea. I never realized how much movies and t.v shows influenced our thoughts and actions. It was interesting to see that instead of competing with movies for children’s mind, movies was going to help schools in educating on what is right. ” Like other proposals for self-censorship, the production code was designed to shape movies so they taught audiences moral, political, and social lessons”

The code listed the things that were not allowed on children’s programs. To name a few mentioned in the book that I found interesting:

– Disrespect for either parental or other proper authority must not be encouraged.

– Unfair exploitation of others for personal gain must not be made praiseworthy

-Dishonesty and deceit are not to be made appealing or attractive to the child.

A question that popped into my mind while reading this section was :

Was there less misbehaving from children because of censorship? Obviously, if you look at the stuff on our televisions and in the movies, we can say that things are less censored as years go by.

Do you think if things were more censorship now, there will be a decrease in crimes, murder, and such?