@912.jpg)
merry christmas to you and your loved ones from YDNFTF!
giving back what i took from public education
The cyclic nature of U.S. public education has, once again turned regressive. Progressive education proponents—descendants of Dewey (1897)—find their theories abandoned and instruction reduced to only those content areas that are norm-reference-tested. Not unlike the launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957 and the call-to-math-and-science-arms it stirred in this country, the implementation of No Child Left Behind (2002)—which generously considered art a “core subject”—has unintentionally made the study of the arts a victim of the current political movement. While this may seem historically inconsequential—the teaching of art has gained and lost popularity throughout history—the ramifications vis-à-vis student achievement are significant since fine arts can improve higher-order, concrete, and abstract thinking, the very skills students need for success in school (Gallatt, 2007).
According to Petress (2005), of all the arts, music is the most important because it has proven beneficial to students in four major categories: success in school, success in society, success in developing intelligence, and success in life. Despite its merits, music has taken the biggest cuts due to the high costs associated with music education (sheet music, instrument purchase and repair). More affluent schools manage to maintain music programs, but music education is vital to the physical, emotional, intellectual, social, and spiritual growth of all students, regardless of economic background. Its virtues include:
· Self-discipline, dedication, and goal-setting
· Hard work, practice, and improvement
· Self-confidence and humility
· Teamwork
Gardiner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences provides more support for utilizing music to fully educate students. When teachers address all learning styles—including music—students develop their weaker modalities while nurturing their stronger ones. This allows all students to be more versatile learners in various settings (Mixon, 2004).
While the so-called “Mozart Effect” debate rages on, most scholars agree that music motivates students to learn (Eady & Wilson, 2004). It provides an “emotional hook” that can engage students in learning rudimentary facts (McIntire, 2007). Raymond & Broderick (2007) claim that even the most reticent of students will enthusiastically participate in classroom activities when given the opportunity through the arts, allowing them to dig deeper into the curriculum, and providing richer content without sacrificing teacher accountability. Even rap music, which has unified an entire generation of disparate cultures, can be used in the classroom to educate, its “driving beat” mixed with educational lyrics adding interest to otherwise lackluster lessons (Eady & Wilson, 2004).
Music helps students learn more, more effectively in core subjects, as well as contribute to the attainment of learning goals (Eady & Wilson, 2004). Therefore, music should be woven into the tapestry of the curriculum. Since music and literacy go hand-in-hand—literacy, vocabulary, and memorization skills are naturally developed through melody, rhythm, and rhyme (McIntire, 2007)—reading instruction should be fused with music in order to enhance its effectiveness (Eady & Wilson, 2004). If teaching the whole student is our goal, then music is an important medium that teachers and educators should utilize to maximize student achievement, motivation, and involvement.
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury conventional wisdom, not to praise it.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good oft interred with their bones.
Politicians have used policy to punishing effects on our profession. Our autonomy—and indeed our integrity—as teachers and members of the professional class is threatened daily. The press opines about the need for “accountability.” Republicans rant about the need for “choice.” The public is pummeled with negative stories about dysfunctional districts and trashy teachers. We’re in an all-out PR war, and our students’ academic lives are on the line.
While politicians clamor to take credit for the latest educational craze, we teachers are in the ditches—day in, day out—diligently disciplining and didactically directing. We know what works with kids because we work with kids! How can anyone who hasn’t spent more than a few hours in a classroom know what is best for students? Don’t you find that insulting? Have you ever spent a few hours in the state Capital building or Congress then decided you knew exactly how to legislate? It’s ludicrous! We need to stand up for ourselves! We need to demand the respect we’re due.
Our profession has been marginalized by state-sponsored, mandatory reading programs and high-stakes, standardized testing. These are clumsy tools at best. They aren’t the precision instruments needed to address the disparate needs of 21st century American school children. Non-standard English speakers and English language learners need more finessed, more finely tuned teaching—practices that reading programs like Open Court don’t provide.
Take the teaching of reading comprehension skills for example. To teach Main Idea, the 5th Grade Teacher’s Edition simply states, “Have students locate the main idea of the paragraph and its supporting details.” That’s it. No instruction on how to find the main idea or activities teaching what a main idea is, just find it. A careful look at the 4th grade T.E.’s reaps the same result. How about 3rd grade? Still no explicit instruction. 2nd grade? Nope. Well, surely then the first grade teacher’s edition would have at least one activity teaching this abstract concept in a concrete way… Nonewhatsoever.
Yet we expect someone who is new to this country—someone who has never spoken the language or read it fluently—to pick out the main idea of a literally foreign text when he/she has never been taught how to do it?! That’s insanity. Oh, and by the way, here’s this standardized reading test—only in English, mind you—that we expect you to be successful at, or we’re going to send in the “program improvement” team with their clip boards and bow ties to go snooping through your teacher’s lesson plan book! Outrageous.
We must work smarter than that. We mustn’t fall prey to the one-size-fits-all approach. There are no silver bullets, no panaceas—only good teaching and good resources. We must have both in order to be successful. We must supplement our current reading programs with venerated practices that are professional and practicable, like explicit comprehension skills instruction. We must teach students at their instructional reading level, not at their frustration level, two to three grades above their comprehension level, like in the Open Court series. This is the “soft bigotry of high expectations.”
Our core texts—math, social studies, science, and health—are also too difficult, so we must replace them as well. They are all written at grade level, yet how many of our students in urban schools—the ELL’s, et al—read at grade level? These students are just as deserving of science and social studies instruction as more affluent students. They need textbooks that are not only aligned to their grade-level standards, but more importantly, written at their own individual reading level. So while your top—or at grade level—students read the harder text, the lower students still have access to the same content, but with easier vocabulary. It can be done… with a little ingenuity… and a lot of cash.
This reminds me of a bumper sticker I used to see occasionally: It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and the army has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber. The money issue is a problem, but perhaps it’s an opportunity for local publishing businesses to get involved in education. To wit: perhaps smaller, local companies could step in to meet each state’s needs instead of huge, national text book companies (McGraw-Hill, Houghton-Mifflin, etc) that make a uniform, grade-level text that they can sell in any state. This could address the educational problems each state faces on a more local level. Just another way we could better serve the needs of our students in this country. Thank you.
The nascent movement to ‘vilify the fry’ may have begun with Cultural Politics and Education (Apple, 1996). Recently, French fries have been an enemy to both our health and waistlines due to their preparation in trans fat. A few short years ago, we changed their anti-American image by renaming them “Freedom Fries.” But a decade ago, cheap French fries began wreaking havoc on education with far more serious effects.
This didn’t happen in the United States—it happened in Asia—but with W.T.O. trade policies like NAFTA, a similar educational crisis is currently affecting California: how do we educate the ever-growing immigrant population? This has had national, political ramifications. Immigration and national defense are arguably the two most important issues to both democrat and republican voters in this upcoming election year. So what do French fries have to do with immigration? I’ll get to that. Suffice to say, the immigration problem we face in 2007 is analogous to the problem of cheap French fries in the Asian country where those potatoes were grown.
When a multi-national, fast-food giant was offered huge tax breaks to move their potato farming and French fry production to rural areas of this Asian country, thousands of indigenous people were forced from their homes—land on which generations of their kin had lived, long before banks and mortgages and deeds existed. Naturally, the people migrated from their rural environment into and around the cities.
While the “Value Meal” was heralded in America for its abundance of cheap food options—including fries—unbeknownst to most Americans, it was causing an educational crisis in Asia. Since the fast-food company was offered sweeping tax-breaks on the land, no new revenue was coming into government coffers. This–and the unfair counting of its citizens—accounted for the dearth of new schools. Even if there were a “legitimate” need for new schools, there was no money to fund their construction.
We have a similar educational problem in California. After Clinton signed NAFTA in 1994, huge companies (like the auto and textile industries) moved their domestic production facilities south of the border. Many of these factories were built in rural areas, and indigenous people were forced to relocate. Some moved into the surrounding cities, but many moved to the Border States like Texas, Arizona, and California. They moved into urban areas where local school systems—already over-crowded and under-funded—have struggled to address their needs ever since.
The English Language Learner—or ELL—student generally requires more resources to educate; resources many inner-city schools lack. Since Proposition 13, school funding has been tied to property tax. Downtown schools, surrounded by apartments and low-income housing, don’t have the local tax base that more affluent, suburban districts have. Therefore, ELL’s and inner-city children get a “separate but unequal” education.
Standardized (English only) testing only exacerbates this problem. And with federal educational funds tied to these tests, our education system stands at a crossroads. Do we professionals let top-down policies such as NCLB destroy what we know are best teaching practices? We know high-stakes testing doesn’t lead to more effective teaching or a better education—if anything it leads to higher dropout rates. But maybe that’s the point: as long as we stay enamored with cheap French fries, we’ll always need someone to run the drive-through window.
Alone So Far
I watch, as it stops for a girl,
A moment, elaborate and weak.
I am easy in her midst,
Why elaborate, when there's no need to?But I do, all night,
My words ring like money off a bar.
But she's here, asleep now,
One can only go alone so far.One can only go alone so far.
I dream of a deep dark grave,
Seven feet below Saint Augustine.
And she's so easy in her breathing,
Why fall in love, when there's no need to?But we do all night,
One can only go alone so far.
Sleep like spoons, forget whom we are.
But she's here, and she's wound down now.
One can only go alone so far.
i think "it" is his heart.my heart stopped too, when i heard that!
KRUGMAN (10/8/07): People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”
KRUGMAN (10/8/07): Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”
But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism’s true, loyal heir.
come on: everybody who's seen the video--sing and karate chop your arm at the same time!