While looking at the Sesame Workshop website, it was like taking a trip back in time. When I was a child, we were limited to local stations unlike the 200+ channels of today. Not to mention, it was before the days of the remote. As a result, Sesame Street was the foundation of my early educational experiences. Sesame Street helped me to learn my ABC’s and how to count (in both English and Spanish). Looking back, I realize that the diversity of the cast members and the subjects discussed helped me learn a variety of skills in addition to preparing me for school. The show teaches social skills along with cognitive skills. I think that it is very telling that today's shows include clips of shows that were on when I was a child.
Sesame Street utilized television as an educational tool when it began in 1969. As we move through the 21st Century, Sesame Street continues to evolve and change with the changing media. With the increased use of information technology, they established an interactive website for children, parents and teachers. Podcasts are available with focused content. There are videos within the four initiatives (Health & Wellness, Respect & Understanding, Literacy & Numeracy, and Emotional Wellbeing) that discuss various topics that fall under each heading. This is a feature that teachers with Internet access could use to engage their students and support their curriculum. Games, videos, playlists and other interactive tools can be accessed on the home page. ( http://www.sesamestreet.org/home ) Parents can use this area of the website to get their children involved in learning. My nephew is only 2, but my sister often gets on Sesame Street's website to let him "play" a game. I truly believe that having him watch Sesame Street will provide a foundation for his educational development. Allowing him to engage in the interactive activities online will only help support that foundation.
Everyone loves a little trivia. Does anyone know what color Oscar the Grouch was in the first season? (no cheating with google ;-Þ)
Access Podcasts: http://www.sesamestreet.org/podcasts/
Access Initiatives: http://www.sesameworkshop.org/initiatives
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Blog #4: Multiculturalism in Curriculum
Adam Waxler believes that although we must move away from the textbook, we don't necessarily need to move away from the curriculum. In Multiculturalism in School Curriculum, he points out that different cultures and perspectives should be incorporated throughout units of the curriculum. Traditional curriculum can be taught in a way that addresses the various perspectives and allows students to draw their own conclusions. It creates a student-centered environment where the students are actively engaged in learning. Waxler is suggesting that we not try to change the wheel completely. Doesn't it make more sense to add to or slightly alter the existing curriculum instead of completely changing the entire curriculum? The core subjects still need to be taught...students need to learn the three R's. With his method, students are able to take ownership of the knowledge and draw their own conclusions. Therefore, the knowledge is more likely to be retained.
E.D. Hirsc maintains that there are two kinds of multiculturalism: cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism. In his article, Hirsc promotes cosmopolitan, centrist curriculum which exhibits the following characteristics:
1) encourages knowledge of and sympathy towards the diverse cultures of the world
2) fosters respect for every child's home culture as well as for the cosmopolitan school-based culture
3) gives all children competence in the current system of language and allusion that it is dominant in the nation's economic and intellectual discourse
Hirsc points out that a "cosmopolitan, centrist curriculum will initiate evolutionary rather than evolutionary change in American culture.
My own experiences in high school are far from those encouraged by Waxler and Hirsc. Granted, it has been about 20 years since I was in high school. (wow...that's depressing) Things were a lot different then. We were taught more procedurally than children in today's schools. It was more kill and drill than student-centered. As I mentioned in my previous post, it was not exactly a culturally diverse school. It was primarily white and black students, though not equally represented. We had the typical cliques, but I do not recall any racial issues. Aside from typical high school drama, we all got along. Boring, but true. However, I do believe that had Waxler and/or Hirsc's ideas been implemented, we would have graduated high school truly knowing one another and understanding each other's cultures.
E.D. Hirsc maintains that there are two kinds of multiculturalism: cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism. In his article, Hirsc promotes cosmopolitan, centrist curriculum which exhibits the following characteristics:
1) encourages knowledge of and sympathy towards the diverse cultures of the world
2) fosters respect for every child's home culture as well as for the cosmopolitan school-based culture
3) gives all children competence in the current system of language and allusion that it is dominant in the nation's economic and intellectual discourse
Hirsc points out that a "cosmopolitan, centrist curriculum will initiate evolutionary rather than evolutionary change in American culture.
My own experiences in high school are far from those encouraged by Waxler and Hirsc. Granted, it has been about 20 years since I was in high school. (wow...that's depressing) Things were a lot different then. We were taught more procedurally than children in today's schools. It was more kill and drill than student-centered. As I mentioned in my previous post, it was not exactly a culturally diverse school. It was primarily white and black students, though not equally represented. We had the typical cliques, but I do not recall any racial issues. Aside from typical high school drama, we all got along. Boring, but true. However, I do believe that had Waxler and/or Hirsc's ideas been implemented, we would have graduated high school truly knowing one another and understanding each other's cultures.
Blog #3: Multiculturalism
I consider myself to be a fairly flexible person. While I have my own opinions, I will listen to any argument with an open mind. My friends come from a variety of backgrounds. Ever the student, I ask questions and they teach me about their culture and religion. From grades 3-7, I attended school in the Panama City, FL area. It was fairly culturally diverse with a prominent Vietnamese population. (As a result, I find myself correcting people at work when they butcher the name Nguyen.) However, I do not remember learning anything about their culture. We did projects in grade school that revolved around Native Americans and learned about the different tribes that were local to the area. I am not sure that I remember this because of the subject matter or because it was my best attempt at creativity. Art was always my sister’s thing. When I was about to enter the 8th grade, we moved to Madison, AL. The first thing that I noticed was the smallness. By that, I mean that it was not as culturally diverse. Granted, I was not thinking in those words at age 13. At the time, I thought…where in the world did my parents take me? In time, I assimilated as I had before and developed long-lasting friendships.
Samuel Taylor notes in his article that with America, “it may be the first time that a nation has abandoned the single identity of its origins and set out deliberately to adopt multiple national identities.” He feels that the goal of non-whites is separation rather than inclusion. While I am sure that there are many who have that goal in mind, there are also some who are willing to share their cultural history. Perhaps we just have not asked them to share? I do agree that the same historical event is seen differently by different people because their perspectives are different. Taylor compares multicultural history to Affirmative Action. “Just as whites are to step aside to give hiring preferences to minorities, whites are to set aside their own point of view and study those of others. Non-whites, on the other hand, are free to promote their own interests and exclusionist histories. Like Affirmative Action, multicultural history is possible only because the majority has abandoned its position at the center.” I believe that in order to move forward, we should open our minds up to every culture.
Samuel Taylor notes in his article that with America, “it may be the first time that a nation has abandoned the single identity of its origins and set out deliberately to adopt multiple national identities.” He feels that the goal of non-whites is separation rather than inclusion. While I am sure that there are many who have that goal in mind, there are also some who are willing to share their cultural history. Perhaps we just have not asked them to share? I do agree that the same historical event is seen differently by different people because their perspectives are different. Taylor compares multicultural history to Affirmative Action. “Just as whites are to step aside to give hiring preferences to minorities, whites are to set aside their own point of view and study those of others. Non-whites, on the other hand, are free to promote their own interests and exclusionist histories. Like Affirmative Action, multicultural history is possible only because the majority has abandoned its position at the center.” I believe that in order to move forward, we should open our minds up to every culture.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Blog #2: Religion in Public Schools
It is my belief that there should be a definite separation of church and state. The matter for debate is how far those two entities should be kept apart. As the Library of Congress article points out, West Virginia State Board of Education vs Barnette reconsidered the Gobitis decision and “held that free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution denies the government the authority to compel the saluting of the American flag or the recitation of the pledge of allegiance.” While I have no problem saluting the flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance, I do respect another person’s choice not to do either or both.
The second article addresses a more recent federal ruling. In IL, a federal judge ruled against a state law that required public school students to have a moment of silence. Opponents view a moment of silence as a “back door attempt to promote state-sponsored prayer in school.” While I understand that a moment of prayer violates the separation of church and state, I cannot quite understand why a moment of silence is considered an “unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state.” Regardless of faith or beliefs, it is (in my opinion anyway) intended to be just that….a moment of silence.
I clearly remember reciting the pledge of allegiance every morning during grade school (late 70s, early 80s) as well as having a moment of silence. In discussing this issue with my mother, she was quick to point out that prayer in school was the norm in the 60s. They started each day with both the pledge of allegiance and prayer. She even remembers singing religious songs at school. This was a public school in a rural community where K-12 was taught within the same school building. It begs the question…what changed more—the people or the environment?
Additional reference:
http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9412/silence.html
The second article addresses a more recent federal ruling. In IL, a federal judge ruled against a state law that required public school students to have a moment of silence. Opponents view a moment of silence as a “back door attempt to promote state-sponsored prayer in school.” While I understand that a moment of prayer violates the separation of church and state, I cannot quite understand why a moment of silence is considered an “unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state.” Regardless of faith or beliefs, it is (in my opinion anyway) intended to be just that….a moment of silence.
I clearly remember reciting the pledge of allegiance every morning during grade school (late 70s, early 80s) as well as having a moment of silence. In discussing this issue with my mother, she was quick to point out that prayer in school was the norm in the 60s. They started each day with both the pledge of allegiance and prayer. She even remembers singing religious songs at school. This was a public school in a rural community where K-12 was taught within the same school building. It begs the question…what changed more—the people or the environment?
Additional reference:
http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9412/silence.html
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Blog Entry #1: Innovators and Makers
I will be honest and say that I found Gatto’s site overwhelming and (as others have noted) a very cynical and critical view of our school systems. While there are some truths to what he talks about, I got lost in the format of his writing. It was hard to read past the ranting and reach the substance. He discusses that traditional forms of instruction had three specific purposes: to make good people, to make good citizens, and to make each student find some particular talents to develop to the maximum. The fourth purpose has “steadily squeezed the traditional three to the margins of schooling.” He states that the fourth purpose of schools is to become a servant of corporate and political management. This can only be achieved efficiently by isolating children from the real world.
Horace Mann is the Innovator that I feel truly influenced public education as we know it today. He was often referred to as the Father of the Common School. He used his position as the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education to enact major educational reform in 1837. He wanted to ensure that every child could receive a basic education that was funded with local taxes. Mann believed that political stability and social harmony depended on education. To Mann, public schooling was central to good citizenship, democratic participation and societal well-being. He was influential in the development of teacher training schools and some of the earliest attempts to professionalize teaching. He realized that teaching was the key to the improvement of rural schools. He also pushed for the recruitment of women into the ranks of teachers.
Upon reviewing the Makers, I was drawn to Andrew Carnegie. His story is one of “rags to riches”. He was a leading force in the steel industry and a powerful businessman. When he retired at the age of 66 in 1901, he was the world’s richest man. He wanted to become a philanthropist and believed in the “Gospel of Wealth,” which meant that wealthy people were morally obligated to give their money back to others in society. One of his lifelong interests was the establishment of free public libraries so that education could be available to everyone. He donated more than $56 million to build over 2500 libraries throughout the world. In 1902, he founded the Carnegie Institute in order to fund scientific research and establish a pension fund for teachers with a $10 million donation. He also gave $125 million to the Carnegie Corporation in order to aid colleges and other schools. By the time he died, Carnegie had given away more than $350 million which was almost 90% of his wealth. While he is known and remembered as an industrialist and millionaire, I found the scope of his philanthropy surprising. This legacy continues today, with 12 Carnegie trusts and institutions.
Overall, I found it interesting to read about both the Innovators and Makers. While I knew of most of the Makers already, I found their influence on education somewhat surprising. While going through business school, the focus was obviously on the business aspects of the Makers' lives and their successes. I was familiar with some of the Innovators, but certainly not all. It was enlightening to read about how certain educational system changes came to be. Both Innovators and Makers are necessary in order for society to continue to evolve and improve our educational systems.
Additional References:
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/carnegie
http://www.carnegie.org
http://www.pbs.org/onlyateacher/horace.html
Horace Mann is the Innovator that I feel truly influenced public education as we know it today. He was often referred to as the Father of the Common School. He used his position as the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education to enact major educational reform in 1837. He wanted to ensure that every child could receive a basic education that was funded with local taxes. Mann believed that political stability and social harmony depended on education. To Mann, public schooling was central to good citizenship, democratic participation and societal well-being. He was influential in the development of teacher training schools and some of the earliest attempts to professionalize teaching. He realized that teaching was the key to the improvement of rural schools. He also pushed for the recruitment of women into the ranks of teachers.
Upon reviewing the Makers, I was drawn to Andrew Carnegie. His story is one of “rags to riches”. He was a leading force in the steel industry and a powerful businessman. When he retired at the age of 66 in 1901, he was the world’s richest man. He wanted to become a philanthropist and believed in the “Gospel of Wealth,” which meant that wealthy people were morally obligated to give their money back to others in society. One of his lifelong interests was the establishment of free public libraries so that education could be available to everyone. He donated more than $56 million to build over 2500 libraries throughout the world. In 1902, he founded the Carnegie Institute in order to fund scientific research and establish a pension fund for teachers with a $10 million donation. He also gave $125 million to the Carnegie Corporation in order to aid colleges and other schools. By the time he died, Carnegie had given away more than $350 million which was almost 90% of his wealth. While he is known and remembered as an industrialist and millionaire, I found the scope of his philanthropy surprising. This legacy continues today, with 12 Carnegie trusts and institutions.
Overall, I found it interesting to read about both the Innovators and Makers. While I knew of most of the Makers already, I found their influence on education somewhat surprising. While going through business school, the focus was obviously on the business aspects of the Makers' lives and their successes. I was familiar with some of the Innovators, but certainly not all. It was enlightening to read about how certain educational system changes came to be. Both Innovators and Makers are necessary in order for society to continue to evolve and improve our educational systems.
Additional References:
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/carnegie
http://www.carnegie.org
http://www.pbs.org/onlyateacher/horace.html
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Hello!
My name is Misty Neal. I am currently working for a company that provides unemployment and other services to companies. I basically push papers all day long. This is actually the second time working with this company, following a layoff from the insurance industry. Feeling that I had made a backward step, I started thinking about making a change. I wanted to become a teacher after graduating high school, but the independent person in me wanted to go out and make money. Since that didn't work out quite like I had planned, I decided to go back to Plan A. I'm enrolled in the Masters with Initial Licensure Program, pursuing certification to teach elementary school. This is my second semester and second online class. While it is difficult to manage with a full time job, I am sure that I will be successful. I'm looking forward to teaching. =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)