Define a Successful School

After watching the video "Good school/Bad school" in class this morning it really got me thinking more about how we measure the success of particular schools. The video opened the thought that perhaps a school can be functioning above average but could be testing poorly. The question is, which way should we measure how well schools are actually doing?

Personally, I really enjoyed watching the story of this elementary school in New York City. The school's test scores show it to be below average, especially in the reading department for students. However, after going in and somewhat "investigating" the school in person it was easy to see that the school really seems to be actually thriving. Both teachers and students are enthusiastic and eager to learn. Unfortunately, this joy seems to 'die down' once testing is implemented. After the fourth grade students may be seen having a harder time getting good grades and wanting to learn more. Perhaps this is because the social factors uprising in their lives or maybe it's just the effects of testing students. Bottom line is, these student which seem to be on the right track hit testing and spin off. As Professor Glassman discussed in class, we all hate doing things we don't think we're good at. So, if students are working really hard to become better and then they take the test and for some reason (there are thousands) they don't do good enough, they no longer want to work towards improving. It literally squeezes the fun and the joy out of their schooling. After this is done it becomes almost impossible to instill that joy back.

I found a great article titled, "Testing the Joy out of Learning" (http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Testing-the-Joy-Out-of-Learning.aspx) which talks about exactly what I mentioned above. Students who are continuously being tested have a much more difficult time enjoying learning and all the great things it has to offer. We have to stop expecting that students need to take these tests and score well in order to be able to successful in their education.

International Similarities

Tuesday’s class really interested me and got me thinking about the differences and similarities in schools around the world.  In past classes, we’ve discussed elective classes and what their worth is. I think that most American schools may have this all wrong, especially for those who know what they want to do with their life and what, specifically, they want to study.  It seems that, from what the guest speakers where sharing with our class on Tuesday, that other countries start narrowing in on what individuals prefer to study earlier than college.  High school is where the divisions start taking place; students start picking out which courses they want and this helps them decide which college/university they would like to go to.  Universities seem to be more specific in what the students study than US universities.

I did a little more research and found this interesting article which discusses the college experiences of four students each from a different country (The Netherlands, Turkey, USA and Norway). The article has each student explain what studying, costs, accommodations, and fun are like for a typical college student in their country.  The USA student claims we study close to 40 hours a week, while the other three countries report somewhere between 10-25 hours of studying each week.  It also seems that American schooling costs more.  However, at least according to these students, college students enjoy spending time with friends, exercising and going out during the weekends…….although I’m sure we all could have guessed that!

So basically, it seems that college students are pretty similar across the world….the school systems really aren’t too different either (at least from the countries who were represented in class…and from what the article states). 

Are teachers professionals?

The question of whether or not teachers are professionals and should be treated, and expected to act as professionals, seems strange to me. As the daughter of two teachers, I have always looked at both my parents as professionals and they certainly dressed and acted like them in the classroom as well. However, many other professionals don't respect teachers as they would other professionals. I'm not sure why it's like this in our country as I had many teachers throughout high school with masters and doctorates that went to school for the same amount of time as plenty of lawyers and doctors I knew. I find it sad to me because these doctors and lawyers never would've gotten their english, math and science basics to go into these professions if it weren't for teachers. Hearing speakers from other countries speak about how teaching is regarded in their home countries helped me gain some perspective on this topic as well. I think it's a shame we can't treat teachers the way we heard they're treated in India and even Japan. This article was an interesting read to also understand how and why today's society treats teachers the way we do. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-07-18/national/35236384_1_professionals-teachers-test-scores

What's it going to take?

What's it going to take for American think-tanks to realize that this testing craze isn't going to solve the problems facing education in public schools.  In Finland, teachers are highly respected, and it's a job which only Finland's highest achievers are qualified for.  They still require a master's degree, and I don't think that's going to change, whereas in the United States funding is struggling so much that in Ohio they are trying to get teachers to be less qualified so that they can be paid less. This information is available in this article:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html

Why is it that instead of encouraging one on one relationships with struggling students in order to tutor them into a successful career in education, we want to punish teachers because they have students that are struggling?  And then shut down a school, because it's struggling?  Shouldn't those students and schools get extra help?  “If you only measure the statistics, you miss the human aspect.” It's so true, we're not raising a generation of robots and calculators, these are children who need help!  The policy makers and think-tanks seem to think that if we could replace teachers with robots and mandated standardized tests, that we would be number one.  They seem to think that it's sheer laziness that is causing problems, instead of outdated methods and poor incentives.  I was pained to hear my boss tell me that we're moving in the right direction with merit pay, because too many tenured slobs have been banking on taxpayer money for too long. 

I was literally shocked to read this statement, "There are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students’ senior year in high school."And they are doing fantastic across the board!  So what's it going to take to make this clear to the powers that be?  I don't know, but I hope it happens soon.

No Teacher Left Behind

We have discussed in class how much testing students has affected students and their education. Along with their learning and how much they learn on topics they need to know. But, what we haven't discussed is how much the testing affects the teachers. When going through an education program teachers are educated on how best to get through to kids and teaching methods that work best with different learners. We are also educated on fun ways to teach subjects that we love, but none of it prepares teachers for what they actually have to teach. Now when teachers get their first job they are so excited to make lesson plans and seating charts and decorate their classrooms, but then they are handed the core requirements and information about standardized testing for the year. This takes all the excitement out for most teachers. Now instead of being excited to teach they are worried that they aren't teaching the correct things to have their students pass tests, therefore having low scores and possibly affecting their jobs. More often now teachers are not staying at the same schools as long and less are reaching tenure, with mainly testing to blame.

This link is to a blog that a teacher has written about his years in teaching before standardized testing became a craze and after No Child Left Behind:
http://www.edutopia.org/standardized-testing-NCLB-school-suffers

He expresses how his former school did great in the first few years of NCLB but after time began to fail. His school was in Oakland, California, one of the most violent cities in the country and now his students were beginning to be looked at by the government. Since he has left the school is now in it's fourth year of unsuccessful by government standards and considered for closure. Along with that there is only one teacher left fry he science department that he was in because all the others have left due to the testing. Testing is ruining not only children's education but it is also ruining the lives if some excellent and passionate teachers!

The View of Teachers in Other Countries

I really enjoyed hearing the speakers on Monday talk about their teaching experiences in other countries. It was very interesting to hear the similarities and differences of how teachers were viewed in their society. According to this website, http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2011/08/16/the-10-best-countries-to-be-a-teacher/, it seems like the best countries to be a teacher in are in either Asia or Europe, which happens to be the same countries that the speakers are from.

I wasn't too surprised to hear that teachers were more respected in other countries than in the United States. Those same countries from the website mentioned earlier have the highest graduation rates (http://www.aneki.com/oecd_countries_high_school_graduation_rates.html). I think culture plays a huge role in that idea because in some countries, children are taught to respect their elders at a very young age. Also, the education system in other countries can be a lot more strict than ours and won't tolerate certain behaviors. I mean the speaker from Korea even said that some students would try to call the cops on their teachers!

However, I was very surprised to hear that the salary of a teacher were pretty similar in other countries. I always thought that since teachers were more respected in other countries, that they would get paid a little more. I also thought that teachers in other countries would require more training than the United States, since they seem to take education more seriously, but the amount of education needed to be a teacher is also pretty similar.

Higher testing. Not higher learning

http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Test_Problems_Seven/?page=3

As I was reading the article I found about problems with testing I found a point that I feels relate heavy to everything that we have been talking about in class. The point that the article made is that “higher test scores do not mean more learning”. It goes on to talk about the fact that just because test preparation increases scores it does not increase the ability to apply your knowledge to other situations. This relates to the scary fact that creativity is being taken out of the classroom, which means it is basically beign taken out of our future generations. The school systems are becoming more and more like the ones that the guest speaker from Korea talked about. Therefore our future generations are actually becoming   

Pros and Cons of Testing

We have been talking a lot about testing in class and sort of sparked my interest to research the pros and cons of testing myself.
I definitely think that there are major setbacks to tests that cannot be ignored. It is fair to say that tests are mostly about memorization, whether it is recalling facts or applying them to the bigger picture, some kind of intense memorization process is involved. Some students are extremely good at this type of learning and retaining information, but what about the other students who are not as good at this but are at other ways of showing information? We must consider that not everyone is "test-taker," and with practice they may never be and it has nothing to do with their intelligence. And does this kind of learning and retaining process actually show that students are not just memorizing the situation but are understanding it and applying it to their lives (which is indeed the ultimate goal of education)? Also, I'm sure everyone can agree that testing young children is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, in the article I have linked below, they talk about how extremely common it is for young students tests to be sent to grading facilities covered in vomit due to "test jitters." Also, tests definitely dictates the learning and teaching freedom in the classroom. I can say from personal experiences that I never liked taking AP classes because the curriculum was catered to the tests and was very static, so I always ended up taking college-level high school classes that were not centered around a test but rather on the grade you got in the class and allowed for more freedom and subject exploration. Obviously, there are many more cons that come with tests.
However, I think it is important to remember that testing does have its benefits when done correctly in practice, and it is done correctly in practice in most cases. Students have to be examined in some type of way, maybe in the future it doesn't have to be an actual test per say, but as educators we must know the type of progress that our children are or are not making so that we can correctly do our job in assisting them. Which I believe is also another benefit of correct testing: the results can allow to see possibly which students are struggling with understanding the topics in class. Seeing that a specific student got a bad grade on a test can be a warning signal to a teacher that maybe either this student is having troubles with test-taking or is really struggling to understand the class. And if the student won't ask for help themselves, then this can provide a segue for the teacher and the student to have a conversation about what exactly it is that they need help with.
This article actually gives a table of the pros and cons of testing so I thought it was very interesting in regards to what we have been talking about in class: http://standardizedtests.procon.org/#background

Too much emphasis on the ACT

Class discussion on Wednesday has reaffirmed many thoughts  I have had since I was a high school student. I am glad I was not the only one to say that the ACT has done nothing for me. In fact I despise the ACT. Throughout my whole entire high school career, I was the student who always got my homework done on time, volunteered in every organization I could, played sports meanwhile having a part-time job. I took the ACT three times beginning in my sophomore year. Between my sophomore and junior year my ACT score did not improve. I wanted to take the class that is supposed to help students do better like a few of you said you took in this class, but I was not able to because of schedule conflicts. My feelings on this class that will supposedly help is since you have to pay for it is basically paying money to get more money aka scholarships. My sophomore year at my previous college in my composition class I wrote an essay on why I hate the ACT and why it shouldn't be used for college admissions. I wish I could go back and find that essay, but the point is that colleges put way too much emphasis on the ACT. This creates anxiety for students such as myself when there are so many other factors that should be taken into account more than they currently do like community involvement and GPA. The ACT makes me angry because I worked so hard in my studies, while some of my high school classmates would show up to school late and sleep during class all while get better ACT scores which lead them to more scholarships.
 Dr. Glassman mentioned how the ACT is only used to predict success during the first year of college. Why then is it used? Well thinking about this for some time I have come to the conclusion that the reason why colleges give more money to students with higher ACT scores is because it improves the school's image. If a university has a minimum ACT score of a 28 or 29 then they have "better students" than say universities that have minimum ACT scores of a 25 or 26. Another reason that colleges will base funding on ACT scores is because of dropout rates. If Ohio State had a dropout rate of 50% for freshman students and Michigan had a dropout rate of 25%, Michigan would be more appealing to potential students. Colleges are assuming that if students have high ACT scores, they are more likely to be successful their freshman year, thus not dropping out. Of course the reality is that students drop out for other reasons than just poor grades. Family emergencies, funding, and many other personal problems could cause even someone who had a perfect ACT score to discontinue pursuing their college degree.
 I don't think the ACT is completely evil, but I think that there should a lot less emphasis on it and more emphasis on community involvement and GPA. I received a 23 on the ACT which is not very good, but I have a 3.8 GPA here at Ohio State and a 3.995 at my previous college before I transferred. I have even received a scholarship here through the college of Education and Human Ecology. Looking at my ACT score four years ago, I would have been turned down by Ohio State. I think that colleges should have a minimum requirement that is an average of ACT scores and GPA where GPA makes up 75% of the total score and the ACT makes up the remaining 25%.
I found this opinionated article that makes the point that the ACT and SAT should be optional. There were many good ideas and reasoning going on. It really is fascinating. The link for it is http://www.gwhatchet.com/2013/03/07/justin-peligri-make-the-sat-and-act-optional/.

We've got it backwords when it comes to testing

Someone mentioned in class this week that we seem to have our testing all wrong. We shouldn't give more money and more resources to schools that test better, but rather we should give money to the schools that do poorly when it comes to testing. Those are the schools that obviously need the assistance. It's the Mathew effect. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Schools with more funding get better test scores therefore receiving even more funding and schools that do poorly on tests never receive any funding and continue to do poorly on tests.

The following link talks about how poorer schools are cheated on the funding that they deserve.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/report-how-much-high-poverty-schools-get-cheated-on-funding/2011/11/30/gIQAJf1tEO_blog.html

I think it's high time that people start doing when they know is right and help the districts that they know are in need. Schools that receive better funding benefit everyone in the community.

Stop Penalizing Boys for Not Being Able to Sit Still at School

Here's an article titled "Stop Penalizing Boys for Not Being Able to Sit Still at School" : http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/stop-penalizing-boys-for-not-being-able-to-sit-still-at-school/276976/

In the article, the author says that teachers should help them channel their energy into productive tasks and supposes that the reason boys act up is because boys' education is not up to par. Boys are kept back in schools at twice the rate of girls. Boys are diagnosed with learning disorders and attention problems at nearly four times the rate of girls, are more likely to drop out of school, and make up only 43 percent of college students. She goes on to mention eight categories of instruction that succeeded in teaching boys that came from a 2009 study:

• Lessons that result in an end product--a booklet, a catapult, a poem, or a comic strip, for example.
• Lessons that are structured as competitive games.
• Lessons requiring motor activity.
• Lessons requiring boys to assume responsibility for the learning of others.
• Lessons that require boys to address open questions or unsolved problems.
• Lessons that require a combination of competition and teamwork.
• Lessons that focus on independent, personal discovery and realization.
• Lessons that introduce drama in the form of novelty or surprise.

So, instead of penalizing boys energy and competitive drive, she says we should take advantage of those attributes in order to teach them better.  This can be applied even if you are just teaching for a standardized test.

This scratches at the bigger issue of always striving to make education interesting and relevant. Teaching for standardized testing generally goes against curiosity and creativity, but who is to say we can have both? Standardized testing and its teaching is flawed in its current state, but this is one way we can improve it.

How We Should Evaluate Students

I personally think there are many problems with evaluating students based on their test results. Some students who do very well on tests might actually be the ones who aren't gaining anything from the class. Some students are better at cramming information they know must be memorized and then dumping it from their brain the minute the test is over. Some students might get lucky and just bubble in all the right answers without even studying. Some students might do poorly because it takes them longer to read a problem and they can't finish the test. Some students might know the information but are so worried about the test they can't focus. And lastly, some students might be among the smartest in their school, but if they don't care about the tests they take, they wont apply themselves and show what they know.

However, I still think we need to evaluate students in some way. Students and their parents need to know whether or not they are making progress. I think receiving a grade in a class is great motivation to continue to work hard and take in the information given to you. I recently read an article written by a woman named Lisa Neilsen. In her article she discusses nine ways to access students other than standardized testing and why she came up with them. These alternatives include looking at the student's schoolwork, playing games, creating challenges, earning points, real world work, real world projects, real world accomplishments, personal success plans, and ePortfolios. (http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2012/04/8-ways-to-assess-without-standardized.html)
I think teachers should start to try these ideas or anything else that would promote more open discussion from students (blogging is perfect for this), more creativity, and more personal assignments where a student can thrive and learn about the topics they are interested in.

Cheating for Funding

One interesting thing we talked about in class on Wednesday was how the school administration typically cheats like tampering with tests scores to increase public recognition of the success of the school district as well as funding.  I found an article, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/public-school-children-cheated-by-perverse-performance-pay-incentives.html, which describes how an Atlanta city school had test results that had skyrocketed in a “statistically improbable” way.  Investigation proved that this school and others in the district were cheating to make their test results better.  The school district’s superintendent received $580,000 in “performance bonuses” and was named “Superintendent of the Year.” “The indictment graphically describes how Hall put unrelenting pressure on school principals, who in turn pressured teachers, to produce higher student test scores, which ‘created an environment where achieving the desired end result was more important than the students’ education’.” I think this proves a great point. I don’t think schools are no longer emphasizing education and learning as much as they are on test scores.  This can be stressful for everyone involved in testing: teachers, students, parents, administration. I don’t agree that cheating is the right thing to do in order to get funding for a school, but a lot of the requirements created are unrealistic.  Unrealistic is what they want so Hall, the superintendent in Atlanta, gave them it. What can be done to stop the cheating? 

Too much testing, too early in life

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/education/on-entrance-test-whose-days-appear-numbered-a-95-just-wasnt-good-enough.html?ref=education&_r=0


Every week we discuss testing in some form or another. Testing is something that seems to saturate our schools, with tests looming on the horizon and always having to prepare students for the various layouts of tests; often, we are teaching for the tests. In New York City, there has always been major competition about getting children into the best schools possible, whether it be public or private. Many parents would have their preschools take the ERB in order to get a score that would hopefully land their children in the academically elite and into the school of their choice. However, testing children, toddlers if that, is insane. It introduces the stress related to testing and pressures the children to perform at the highest possible level.

Many parents of these toddlers would brag about their children's scores to other parents. The highest scores were the 99's. The parents who was interviewed for this article was embarrassed about her sons getting 95's because this was seen as failure for not having achieved a 99, even though the score of 95 lands her sons in the top 5% of the US children's population. Schools are now urging parents to not have their children take the ERB tests because there was evidence of score inflation and that the score didn't accurately reflect a child's ability. Some parents supposedly coached their children on correct answers and had their children take classes so that the children's score would improve. Parents would see their child's score as a reflection on their parenting, and would think if the child hadn't done well, "What did I do wrong?" All this pressure that the parents put on testing inevitably affect the children, so this process is putting way too much pressure on them.

The reason that our society places so much emphasis on testing is because we always need to prove that we are better than other countries. We are so competitive that not only has testing infultrated our high schools and middle schools, we now have standards on what is good enough to admit into our kindergartens. Children shouldn't be tested before they know how to read and write, it transforms their academic experience into the score they produce. The child is only as good the score they can produce. The message that we are sending our children is that it doesn't matter what they learn, just how well they can perform on tests.

Respect for Teachers

     “You make your living by teaching, but your profession is humanity.”

       Over the course of the last week, we have been discussing teachers and how they are looked upon and respected in other countries. We heard from three speakers at the beginning of the week who gave insight on their teaching experiences in other countries. The graduate student who spoke about Korea said that teachers in their country are very well respected and very appreciated in their profession, whereas the other two speakers did not speak as though teachers in India and Great Britain were regarded as high as teachers in Korea. We know, comparably, that teachers in the United States have increasingly become more and more under appreciated for their work. However, appreciation for teachers is declining all around the world.

       My question is, WHERE IS THE RESPECT FOR TEACHERS? Why are teachers these days given such little respect in the classroom?  Not only is this lack of respect coming from students, also from the government and even parents. An article entitled, “Why Parents Don’t have More Respect for Teachers,” comes from a Canadian educational magazine that can be found here:http://teachmag.com/archives/128. This article highlights on all of the disrespect that teachers are receiving from parents. Perhaps one reason why teachers are so under appreciated and do not receive respect in today's society is simply because parents do not have respect for their child’s teachers and it is from the parents speaking out that people are made aware of these false accusations. This article goes on to explain that many parents do not appreciate teaching as a “career.” They consider teachers as not working the typical “9 to 5” job and only working six hour shifts to teach and leave, even though many teachers put in extra time and hours with no extra pay to ensure students are getting the direction and the help they need to excel in the classroom. People are also finding it easier to blame teachers for things that are going wrong in the education system, even though those things may have absolutely NOTHING to do with the teachers. Another point the author of this article points out is that since education is looked at as more of a requirement rather than an achievement, teachers and education are not valued as much as they used to be. Do you think this is okay? Don’t teachers deserve more respect from parents and from others for all of the work they do? Why do people think it is okay to place blame on teachers for the education system? It saddens me that teachers receive such little respect for all that they do.

Alternative Methods to Testing

As we discussed in class on Wednesday standardized testing is done quite frequently now, and at a very young age. Children are constantly having test questions thrown at them in class in preparation for the next standardized test. Some children have even become fearful to go to school because of these tests. I don't think test after test is even helping us see if a child really understands the material. I found an article entitled If Not Standardized Tests, Then What? I think this is a really great article because it goes into detail about another issue we talked about in class that if we don't do all these standardized testing how will we know if a student is learning the information.
This article has many suggests one that I really liked was performance assessment. This is where a child can show off what they know. The example given in the article is where a student might do an experiment. I think this is a great way for a student to apply knowledge they have gained in class and expanded it in a project. Here the student is not simple regurgitating information that they had to memorize for a test, but applying and using their knowledge to figure something out. To me this is more meaningful and is having the child think on a higher level than simple bubbling in multiple choice questions.
This being said I don't think that we should completely get rid of standardized testing but I think we do it at an excessive level. I think children should be tested a couple times throughout their whole school career till college. This will allow teachers to see if children are retaining information yet they can use the tests scores as they see fit. This way if some children just simple don't test well the teacher can see that in the classroom. Some children know the information but are just too nervous about what their score on this test will be and how they will be judge to focus on it. What do you guys think about all this?

Comparing salaries

This week was a very interesting week of discussion. It has been interesting talking about teaching as an overall profession, and the view society has on it. I found this article relating to the money having to do with education. It talks about teachers salaries and what money is going to in school systems. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/11/education-compared-oecd-country-Pisa is the article. I found the chart about teacher salaries to be interesting and surprising. Looking at it the United States is actually at the top of salaries compared to other countries. This makes me a little sad though realizing the fact that teachers her in the United States don't get paid very much and majority of other countries are even less than us. There were some other stats in the article, but that one really stood out to me especially since teaching is my planned career and ultimately my livelihood.

Teachers' Status in Other Countries

When the panel of teachers came in to talk to us on Monday, I was surprised by what they had to say. I had a feeling that the respect for teaches wasn't too different there than here. However, the teacher from Korea was telling us how female teachers are held to a higher regard, and also how by being a teacher gave them an advantage in finding a partner - I found this little bit of information very interesting. It was really neat to hear about their personal experiences from people who have taught in foreign countries. In a way, it's kind of sad how teachers are looked upon. They really are the people who shape children into who they become as they get older. Knowing this though, parents especially, still treat them like scapegoats for every problem their child encounters. Why are teachers, in every country apparently, looked upon so differently when they are the ones who arguably have the most difficult job in society? This article I found talks about teachers in New Jersey, for example, and how teachers are continuing to be treated unfairly in our society: http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20130503/NJOPINION02/305030004/Teachers-continue-treated-unfairly

Education in other countries

On Monday when the panal of students came in to talk about how teachers were treated in other countries and what education there was like, I was expecting to hear something totally different then I actually did. I was expecting them to say that teachers in their countries were treated and respected more highly then the teachers hear. I was expecting less test to be given out and education be highly respected. However, after listening to each of them speak about their countries I was surprised to hear that teachers were not as respected either. The biggest surprise was hearing about Korea. I was shocked to hear that teachers were not as respected as they used to be. After class, I then thought why? Why are teachers looked so down upon in our socity? The answer is money. In our society, jobs that bring in a great amount of money are very respected. For example lawyers and doctors. Then this brought up another question. Why are teachers paid so little? After searching the internet for an article about teachers getting paid so poorly. I came across that many believe it just might be a "myth". The article I found asks the question whether teachers are getting paid too much or too little. http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/84780/teacher-pay-international-comparison-usa-korea. The article also brings up how well other countries pay their teachers. After looking at the charts and comparing the salaries the United States just did not add up. However, my question is still unanswered. I still can not come up with a clear answer of why teachers are paid so little. If our job is to teach the future lawyers and doctors its surprising to me the salary teachers do receive after all their time, hard work, and dedication they put into their job.

ACT vs SAT

In class yesterday we talked a little bit about the ACT and SAT. I never knew much about the SAT because I took the ACT.I was told it was the better option out of the two mainly because you lose point value when you answer a wrong question on the SAT.

I didn't formally take a class but my scholarship program I've been in since 6th grade required us to go to Saturday morning workshops to help prepare us. I took it 3 times because they were all free and I got a slightly lower score than the first attempt and the same score as the first attempt on my third attempt. Luckily, I didn't have to stress to much about it because I already knew I was going to get into OSU. I had a full ride scholarship here since the 6th grade. All I had to do was go through the motions still and apply. It's ridiculous to use these tests to determine what schools a student can go to. If someone really wanted to go to OSU but scored a 14, they probably wouldn't have a chance especially now since someone in class said the average is 28.

I do feel a little stress about when it comes to taking the GRE because I really want to get into the schools I apply to and further my education. Graduate school seems a whole lot more competitive than undergrad. However, I'm not going to spend tons of money and classes to prepare. I am going purchase a study book on amazon and download apps on my phone for study tools and pray I get in somewhere from my choice schools I'm applying to.

Here is a link with a chart that compares and contrast the ACT and SAT. This chart can help a student decide which one will "represent" them best.

Alternative Education

At my high school and elementary school, alternative education was available and this is what changed my attitude toward learning.  A combination of amazing teachers and a new approach which gets the student involved in shaping their own education by having a voice in the classroom.  Instead of having information dictated to the class by the teachers, the students voted on what to learn, as well as collaborating in order to do projects which not only "tested" what was learned, but also applied that information.  In elementary school we engaged more in projects and free time for reading or watching educational videos from the library or just talking and playing.  In high school we had a judicial system called "fairness court" where we could petition assignments, treatment, etc.  Students could solve conflicts with other students or teachers, and vice-versa.  The emphasis was on choice in terms of the direction of the path of education and on learning through projects as opposed to learning only what's on a test as dictated by a teacher or board or whoever.  It revived my love for learning because the material was what I was interested in, not what major conglomerate holding corporations are interested in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-nelson/progressive-education_b_3719202.html

This article discusses the downside of a "factory" model as the author describes it, which is the mainstream format for education in our country.  Progressive education has never actually been used, despite the backlash from conservative thinkers.  Progressive does not mean an excuse to abuse drugs or goof off, but is more aptly described by the term "alternative education" as that is what it provides, an alternative for those who do not benefit from a traditional classroom format.  As we discussed earlier this semester, there are certain teachers who reach certain students, and for me and many other students, this format reached us in a way the contemporary setting never did, and added a responsibility in order to take our own education 

One Smart Lady: Analyzing Education.

After reading Diane Ravitch's blog on her views of testing in today's school system, she brought some very astonishing points to my attention. Early in the article, she discusses the ways the test scores and graduation rates are actually the highest they've ever been in history; dropout rates are lowest we've had in years. However, it's obvious that as a society we aren't focusing on these aspects. We're too busy creating more tests to apparently "challenge" not only our students, but also our teachers. She supports that perhaps some schools are continuing low graduation rates, high dropout rates, and low test scores. But, this is happening in areas of poverty where school systems and students are majorly underfunded. Therefore, all of the so called 'steps' we're taking as an education system aren't focusing enough on the real 'heart/basis' of the problem. If perhaps society would be focusing more on helping these poorer schools excel, while maintaining the way that all the average/higher income schools are doing, then the education system wouldn't be in such chaos and debate like the way it is today. The basis of what I'm trying to get at is that testing is making school a process that no child wants to go through. Going to school is becoming more and more stressful and dreadful in an unhealthy way for the students. We discuss over and over again the way school needs to be a mixture between fun and learning; this is not being accomplished in the school systems today. Below is the link to Diane's posting, the article discusses so many evident questions and topics about the debates with education today. I'm looking forward to further discussing these topics as a group in class on Wednesday.  

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/18/diane_ravitch_testing_and_vouchers_hurt_our_schools_heres_what_works/

Why I Hate School, But Love Education

Instead of examining an article, I want to break away from text and examine a video. The video is by a poet named Suli Breezy who is based out of the UK. His spoken word focuses heavily on the problems he sees in education. The one cited in this blog is titled "Why I hate school, but love education," but he has another spoken word piece titled "I will not let an exam result decide my fate." In both videos/poems, the definition and arrival of success are put into question, and Suli argues that society's idea of success undermines the different avenues through which people can accomplish goals.
In the poem, many known (and highly respected/successful) people are quoted or referenced. Some of the major figures alluded to are not formally educated but have nevertheless paved a path that we walk on today. Leaders such as Jesus Christ and Malcolm X are cited because while they did not attend a college like Ohio State to earn a piece of paper, they are responsible for theological, moral, and philosophical growth and inspiration. Steve Jobs is also thrown into the conversation as a person not formally schooled, but highly educated and innovative. Whether you are a "mac" or "pc," it is hard to not acknowledge Jobs' talent and influence on technology as we experience today.
I think that message that Suli Breezy is trying to send is that being educated transcends the walls of a school or the pages of a book. Being educated does not mean regurgitating information to only forget it, but rather mastering a task or a dream and truly pursuing it. This video plays into many of the class discussions and even plays into an international perspective on education as it is voiced from a perspective of an English student.
I think as we are situated in teaching a classroom we should think about what we define as success for our students. Does a students wayward attitude and tendency to break our rules mean they are failing students, or are their unconventional tendencies signify they are brilliant in ways we do not understand? Should we embrace our students' passions and tailor curriculum to fuel their excitement to be education in their favorite things, or should we continue to hold our standards in the comfort of a box that society has constructed for us?

Schooling in other countries (Finland)

Today in class we had three different students from the UK, Korea, and India talk about the education systems in their respective countries and how teachers are viewed in society. I came into class thinking that I was going to hear inspirational stories about how teachers are held at a higher standard in society and how much more they are respected, but it seemed to me that the are viewed very similarly in the UK, Korea, and India as they are here in the United States. Their salaries seem to be similar and there is a stigma as to why people go into teaching whether it be as a "back-up" occupation or a way to raise a family and have a career at the same time. One of the only differences that I saw was in the private schools in the UK. They seem to employ very successful teachers who are respected, paid better, and have more freedom within their curriculum to teach students what they want. But, these schools have more funds because they are privately funded and the students who attend these schools come from wealthy families. I also gathered that testing process to become a teacher in these countries, especially Korea, is much harder. Many students have to take an examination three or four times before becoming a licensed teacher. I wish we could have heard from a student whose country view teaching in a different way than our own to see the contrast between them.

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3749880
This link is to an article about Finland and their education system. It explains why their schools are so successful. Part of this comes from the fact that Finland schools avoid testing their students. They also have more educational funding and their is no poverty.  An administrator explains,
"First of all, “there is a near absence of poverty,” says Julie Walker, a board member of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Walker visited Finland, along with Sweden and Denmark, with a delegation from the Consortium of School Networking (CoSN) in late 2007. “They have socialized medicine and much more educational funding,” she adds. For residents, school lunches are free, preschool is free, college is free. “Children come to school ready to learn. They come to school healthy. That’s not a problem the United States has solved yet.”
Students who come from low income families that are constantly hungry, attend school wondering when and where their next meal is going to come from. Students in Finland school are expected to know how to speak Finnish, Swedish and English. There is also a great respect and trust for teacher. The article explains that only 1/8 applicants are accepted into teacher education programs and they are all expected to earn a master's degree. Teachers in Finland are held at such a higher standard, therefore students are taught by the best individuals qualified to become teachers.
The article also makes the point that schools in Finland do not have the technology and resources available to them unlike many of the schools in the U.S. So my question is, if we have the technology and resources to make our education system better, why aren't we using it to our advantage.

Apples to Oranges

Today while listening to our guests, I was very interested in the discussion of creativity that occurred when talking about the Asian view on learning. Our guest mentioned that she felt that Asian students were very good at memorizing information, yet they had not been taught how to think. I too have seen this occur in my own experiences. I worked at a Kumon center and at that center our students were mostly from Eastern Asia and India; the very program was created by a Japanese man. The program stresses route memorization of doing math with very little or no explanation as to why the equation or idea worked. The students themselves didn’t seem to care whether they understand why they were doing what they were doing- they just wanted to pass the test and move onto the next level of work. I feel that this same drive to find the most concise, least creative, fastest way of accomplishing the task of education is bring promoting in schools to teach more in a shorter amount of time to prepare for testing. While this may work to improve test scores and promote the feeling of awe at the effectiveness of students, I really think it ends up being a detriment to the actual learning of a child. What our guest said I think is true: while our products may be created in Asian countries, the people who create these ideas are those who have been allowed to be creative and express themselves. We try to compare ourselves to these other countries but I think that if we became exactly like them in regards to our educational system, we would lose what it means to be American. I found an article from Australia that spoke to why not all countries should try to model the Asian way of education because it doesn’t work for all cultures. [http://theconversation.com/learning-by-rote-why-australia-should-not-follow-the-asian-model-of-education-5698] I think that comparing our scores to the Asian test scores is really comparing apples to oranges; we learn and stress different things that make our societies different and both unique.

What else is out there?

Other than the obvious issues that I have with the education program at Ohio State (see other blog posts), I wish that as students were better informed about potential teaching experiences pertaining to our degree. In the discussion that we had today with the woman who came to talk about Teach for America, one third of the  class said that they had never heard of the program. For those of us who did know about the program, few people actually knew specifics about the program. While Teach for America may not be ideal for everyone, there are still many opportunities available to us other than the Master's program. The only opportunity that we are given to go into other schools and teach at this university is FEEP and many students do not take advantage of that. I feel that we are not given enough opportunities to practice the skills that we learn in our courses and implement them in a classroom unless we take it upon ourselves to do so. Before class, I only knew that Teach for America worked in low income areas across the United States. I wasn't aware that during the two years you were teaching in the area you were placed, you received your teaching license, which is an alternative plan other than going to grad school here. There is also an organization called City Year which is based in Columbus that essential does the same thing as Teach for America. Unfortunately you do not get your license, but it is another way to get experience. It incredibly unfortunate for graduating seniors with a major in HDFS, that we were not given the opportunity to participate in the education license program at Ohio State. I find is upsetting that it has taken to long for them to even create an education major, when there is one available at all of the branch campuses. It supports my argument that, education is a business. We are forced to attend school for a fifth year and pay money for graduate school, when it should be unnecessary to.

http://www.cityyear.org/CityYear/Home_New_2011/Home_A_2011.aspx
This is link to the city year program in Columbus (there are other programs in other cites around the country). They offer many benefits if chosen to participate. It also gives individuals experience working in inner city school and children from low-income families.

Thinking About Possible TFA Negatives

I guess I never really thought about the negative sides of Teach for America until class on Thursday.  I figured since they want to help the schools of America, they must be great.  After all, two of my friends are serving their second year of TFA this school year.  The only negative I heard was from one of those friends, she said the TFA group in her district wasn’t very organized or helpful.  I figured since her issues mostly dealt with the individuals and not TFA as a whole, it must just be a situational issue. Those kinds of issues are to be expecting among any organization though.  What about other issues though? What about issues that span nationwide?

This article published in The Washington Post back in February this year and touches on some negative views people have about Teach for America.  The one that really bothered me was when she mentions how corps members are taking teaching positions which otherwise could have been filled by long term substitute teachers in the districts. This isn’t necessarily horrible, but the districts are also putting in extra hours to help guide the TFA teacher during their time at the school only to, most likely, have the TFA teacher leave once their two year commitment is up.  Then they start the entire process over again.  I don’t think Teach for America is for me, but I am concerned about possible damage that the organization may, unknowingly, cause our school system. 

Charter Schools

I feel as though in class we have been talking a whole lot about Charter Schools and their recent popularity in education reform. As the focus on testing increases, it is easy to see why Charter Schools have become the focus of wanting to change our education system, for Charter Schools greatly focus almost all their time on testing. Obviously, as we have discussed in class, focusing only on test results can be detrimental to creating a healthy learning environment and can greatly hurt a student's motivation in regards to their successes only being measure by a test score. I think it is also implied and has been said that this hurts the relationship between teachers and students and can make it very static, boring, and stressful. However, I would like to clear up some of the negative stereotypes and shed some light on this topic. As an example, my mom teaches at a Charter School here in Columbus and while, yes, there is so much emphasis on testing that it seems ridiculous, there still are teachers that help motivate their students to learn besides this and have wonderful relationships with their students. My mother is a great example of this type of teacher. She does not let this stressful pressure of testing or the fact that her "at will contract" which means she could be fired at any time the school chooses get in the way of how she treats her students. In fact, she gets requested often by either parents who have heard great things about her or parents whose older children have had her and would like their younger siblings to experience her classroom. She often spends her evenings at home after work thinking of new ideas of how to get the kids excited for testing and just experiencing learning; she strives to keep the boring, static pressure of testing away from her students. Often she will prepare songs or dances for the students to participate in during the day so they aren't simply preparing for the tests by doing worksheets and mock tests all day. She will also go out and buy the kids t-shirts to decorate and wear during testing weeks so that they can have some fun and forget about the pressure of testing at least momentarily. And as I have seen many times while observing in her classroom, my mother always puts patience first with the students, no matter what kind of day she is having or what kind of stress the administration may put her under. She always talks to the children in a light-hearted, friendly, silly manner, even when they are misbehaving. So, while I definitely do not condone such rigorous testing and I do think that it can put stress on the teacher-student relationship, it does not always. While some do, not all Charter Schools demand constant pressure towards their teachers. More importantly, as we have said in class, it takes a special kind of person to be a teacher. And we have have to remember that those special people can be found everywhere, even in situations where they may be put under pressure. Even when stress and situations can be very demanding, these caring and hard working teachers will always put their students first.

Here is an article that further shows that even in Charter Schools and/or stressful schools where your job is not guaranteed, there are still teachers who dedicate time and love to their students. This article also recognizes the importance of student relationships and how well students perform in the classroom and get excited about the subject:

http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/09/education-voices-student-teacher-relationships-essential-for-school-success/

TFA, the best choice after college?

I was familiar with the name of Teach for America, as well as City Year. Both programs, on the surface, are programs that seem to fit my aspirations. I am honestly passionate about inner city/troubled districts. Between coming from a small town with a failing school and spending time volunteering in Columbus City schools, I have a heart for the kids. I want to meet the needs of the students I will one day have in my own class room, and I often think that the educational system needs to be reformed. As for my role in this, I have always thought as my role strictly being to reform the shape of a classroom from within.
Because I am so interested in meeting the needs in "difficult" places, and college does not equip students to be come teachers, TFA and CY have always seemed like the next step after college.
After our guest speaker from TFA (who spoke very well and I believed to be genuine in her answers), I realize that TFA is not an option for me. I am not seeking a stepping stone or a completion of a "good deed." I actually want to make a career out of serving a school with my passion and effort, not give two years of my time. While TFA makes it possible for people to stay in education after 2 years, I feel that the reform that TFA is initiating may not be the reform education needs.
This is separate from TFA completely, but it reminds me of my current impression of the program...I met another student and we discussed our majors. She was something like "education policy" and that excited me because I, too, want to be a teacher. But she quickly addressed this excitement with "Oh, I would never be a teacher, I just think there needs to be a change in the way we do education." It was frustrating for me to realize that this woman may play a crucial part in how I run my classroom one day, yet she will never spend time with students like I will. So my impression of TFA tells me that the program is creating people who are passionate about changing education, but in a more "hands off" approach. Yes, these participants are going to be spending two years in a classroom, but usually to leave for a better paying career or to serve the educational system outside of the classroom (ie: our guest speaker said she most likely will never teach again, but is studying education). Possibly, she will be on the forefront of future changes. But is 2 years in a classroom and a degree enough to provoke proper change?
The TFA representative also mention the constant change and growth that TFA experiences.This blog post http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2011/10/31/why-i-did-tfa-and-why-you-shouldnt/ hits on one man's perspective on TFA and he talks a lot about what the changes and growth have done to make the program worse in addition to some other arguments he has about TFA.

Alternative Educator License.

For those of you who will not graduate with your teaching license and aren't really sure about how you want to get your license, I found an interesting option. When I applied to TFA I knew that it was a way for me to get my initial teaching license. But since I wasn't accepted (not sure if I am going to apply again), I am looking for other options. I'm hoping that I can get in to OSU's master's program, but since it is very competitive I am looking for back up plans. I've looked at Capital and Ashland's post-bachelor's programs, but it looks like I would have to go for three semesters- which isn't something I'm looking forward to.

I was talking to my brother and he was telling me about the Ohio Alternative Educator License. To earn the alternative license you must complete an Intensive Pedagogical Training Institute (IPTI) which lasts only six months. All of your coursework is online and you need 15 hours of field experience. I think this is a really great option for those who just want to start teaching and don't necessarily want to get their master's right away. And it only costs $200 for the IPTI and $25 for the application fee! Check out the link to find out more about the requirements and assignments you would do for IPTI.