http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/12/01/a-coupla-rich-guys-sitting-around-talking/
In the blog entry called A Coupla Guys Sitting Around Talking, Robert Pondiscio refutes the argument that teachers are the only employees who get raises based on seniority. Pondiscio does not argue that teachers should paid based on seniority, rather suggests that the idea that teachers are the only ones who are paid in this fashion, is incorrect. Across the board, in corporate positions, many employees will receive raises for the mere fact that they have worked another year. How is this different than teacher wages? He points out that the research of many different occupations shows that many jobs pay their employees based on seniority, and in fact give raises annually for really no reason. So, to argue that it is preposterous that teachers are paid by seniority is an unfair argument.
The blog relates to class because we have talked about RTTT, and how teachers are starting to get paid due to results. Many educators are now being judged on their students' test scores, and being paid accordingly. The article finds that this may not be a fair rule. Just because students are not performing well on tests, that does not necessarily mean that teachers are at fault, or that they should be fiscally penalized. As we have discussed in class, there are many different factors that play into low-performance, and who is to say that teachers are at the forefront. Also, if teachers do start performance based pay, as RTTT suggests, what evidence does the government have that this will work? Because according to many other very successful businesses, or even employees of the White House, seniority based pay seems to be working.
I agree with the article. It seems odd to me that teacher are attacked for being paid based on seniority, when most of the world works on this system. In any job, or even many clubs and social settings, people are given more respect and more money for how long they can stay a part of the group. For the government to argue that teachers get paid for showing no results, and that that is different from everyone else, is wrong. I do think that teachers should have more accountability, but I do not agree with performance based pay. I also believe that teachers are unfairly scolded for the current pay system, when many of the scolders should look at their own pay system. Many times, he or she will find, that they too have gotten raises for no reason. I believe that something needs to change for teachers, in order to weed out the teachers who are not doing their job, but just like in any other job, I believe that the "weeding out" should be done through evaluations, rather than the test scores of their students.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Is technology the problem with education, or is school just that boring?
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/
In Growing Up Gadgety, by Robert Pondiscio, technology is the problem with education. Rather, the new generations' minds, which are geared towards technology, are the problem. Students spend many hours a day sitting in front of the newest technologies, where they give mass amounts of energy to the newest video game or Iphone application. It's no wonder that students do not want to listen to teachers drag on about long division or rock formations. Pondiscio suggests that the new generation of students' minds are geared differently than those of the previous generation. Studies have proven that the minds of students nowadays are trained to skip from one task to another within seconds, like in video games, rather than focus on one thing (a lecture) for longer periods of time. Also, the article addresses the notion that because students are constantly stimulated by something, our students' minds are not getting the rest they need, and therefore are not as able to perform. The educational movement as of right now, is barely starting to move towards a more technologically engaging curriculum, in order to hopefully cater to students' interests.
In class, we have talked about the technological movement that is going on right now. More students are taking classes online for that simple fact that it is easier, and they are more able to sit in front of a computer, than sit in front of a teacher. Also, the movie that the class watched, that had the animated lecture talked about technology in education as well. The movie also had the idea that it is no wonder our students are not interested in school; they have much more interesting and advanced things going on at home. Education for the simple pleasure of feeling educated no longer sparks the minds of students. Children are much more likely to feel good about passing a level on a video game, than passing a test. Why? Because the video game is more stimulating. Students today are able to multi-task because in video games and t.v. shoes the screens and scenes are always changing. In classes many times, students sit in one chair and look at one chalkboard for most of the day. And we wonder why students are disengaged?
I agree with the idea of the article. I agree that students are much different than they were decades ago. With every couple of years comes new fads, activities and interests for the students. Teachers need to be aware of these changes, and tailor the curriculum to the students' needs. I agree that many students sit in class very bored everyday, because whatever technological toy they have at home is much more interesting to them. However, I believe that too much technology can be hurtful in a classroom. I believe that much of education is learning how to be a socially literate being. A student who takes all online classes, listens to webinars, and never works on any person-to-person group projects is losing a lot of what education should be about. In the real world, people need to be able to interact in order to obtain a job, or progress through life. A virtual educational experience lacks personal interactions. I do agree with the article though, that the minds of students are geared much differently. Teachers need to learn how to have multiple activities during one class period, have students move around, and present multiple opportunities for them, so that the students' minds can keep switching tasks, without checking out of the lecture or activity. Overall I believe the article brings up a good point, and a point that all teachers need to recognize. On the other hand, I hope that teachers will not take the information in the wrong way, and bring technology into the classroom too much; there needs to be a balance.
In Growing Up Gadgety, by Robert Pondiscio, technology is the problem with education. Rather, the new generations' minds, which are geared towards technology, are the problem. Students spend many hours a day sitting in front of the newest technologies, where they give mass amounts of energy to the newest video game or Iphone application. It's no wonder that students do not want to listen to teachers drag on about long division or rock formations. Pondiscio suggests that the new generation of students' minds are geared differently than those of the previous generation. Studies have proven that the minds of students nowadays are trained to skip from one task to another within seconds, like in video games, rather than focus on one thing (a lecture) for longer periods of time. Also, the article addresses the notion that because students are constantly stimulated by something, our students' minds are not getting the rest they need, and therefore are not as able to perform. The educational movement as of right now, is barely starting to move towards a more technologically engaging curriculum, in order to hopefully cater to students' interests.
In class, we have talked about the technological movement that is going on right now. More students are taking classes online for that simple fact that it is easier, and they are more able to sit in front of a computer, than sit in front of a teacher. Also, the movie that the class watched, that had the animated lecture talked about technology in education as well. The movie also had the idea that it is no wonder our students are not interested in school; they have much more interesting and advanced things going on at home. Education for the simple pleasure of feeling educated no longer sparks the minds of students. Children are much more likely to feel good about passing a level on a video game, than passing a test. Why? Because the video game is more stimulating. Students today are able to multi-task because in video games and t.v. shoes the screens and scenes are always changing. In classes many times, students sit in one chair and look at one chalkboard for most of the day. And we wonder why students are disengaged?
I agree with the idea of the article. I agree that students are much different than they were decades ago. With every couple of years comes new fads, activities and interests for the students. Teachers need to be aware of these changes, and tailor the curriculum to the students' needs. I agree that many students sit in class very bored everyday, because whatever technological toy they have at home is much more interesting to them. However, I believe that too much technology can be hurtful in a classroom. I believe that much of education is learning how to be a socially literate being. A student who takes all online classes, listens to webinars, and never works on any person-to-person group projects is losing a lot of what education should be about. In the real world, people need to be able to interact in order to obtain a job, or progress through life. A virtual educational experience lacks personal interactions. I do agree with the article though, that the minds of students are geared much differently. Teachers need to learn how to have multiple activities during one class period, have students move around, and present multiple opportunities for them, so that the students' minds can keep switching tasks, without checking out of the lecture or activity. Overall I believe the article brings up a good point, and a point that all teachers need to recognize. On the other hand, I hope that teachers will not take the information in the wrong way, and bring technology into the classroom too much; there needs to be a balance.
Sandra Stotsky on Ed Schools
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/
The blog by Sandra Stotsky talks about the problems in Education schools. As the nation is in a state of panic because of the "failing" schools, the public is looking for a solution. Firing "bad" teachers, or making higher stakes for teachers when test scores come out are two of the current ways that the government is dealing with the problem. Stotsky brings up the question of why we look to fix the aftermath, but not the system that produced the problems. Stotsky suggests having teachers become more educated in the area that they will be teaching. As of now, elementary education teachers get a broad degree, which she suggests is not sufficient. Stotsky suggests that for grades k-4 the teachers should attend a 3-year intensive institute, where the students are only picked from the top 25%. Grades 5-12, she suggests, should have a MA or MS in the area that he or she will be teaching. If the requirements are tightened up, then teachers will be more knowledgeable and therefore more successful. What I thought was interesting was that she suggests that there should be no federal funding for schools, rather use that money to do teacher evaluations, research and further teacher education. The overall point of the article was that if we are producing failing schools, and the government blames that on the teachers, we may want to look at the institutions that are producing the failing teachers.
The article relates to many things that have been discussed in class. First of all, the constant question of : what should we do about the failing schools?" is being answered once again. However, this time, the article talks of helping the teachers become better educated, rather than just blame the teachers, and do nothing to help them. The article also addresses the topic of teacher requirements. In class we have discussed the ways in which teacher education has grown and changed throughout the decades. In this article, Stotsky is throwing a new idea out on the table. Rather than tighten testing, as we have been doing in the past, the U.S. should fix the teacher education schools. The idea could be a monumental change in the United States teacher education system.
I agree and disagree with this article. I agree with the fact that teacher education programs do need to do a better job of preparing students for the future. As said in the article, many teachers graduate, join the workforce, and say to his or herself "I am not prepared for this". Although I do not feel that I will not be prepared, I do believe that teacher education programs could have higher standards, and higher course content, that would better prepare the teachers. Each teacher education school is different, however I believe that making the entrance requirements and graduation requirements more difficult would be a good idea. I agree that teachers could be better educated, however I do not believe that better education would solve the problem. I believe that there are many other issues such as SES, school funding, and many other things that contribute to failing schools. Saying that the key answer is to better educate teachers, once again places the blame on the teachers, which is not fair. I also disagree that funding should be taken away from the schools. Although it would still be invested in the school through the teachers, I do not think that any school, especially the failing ones, can afford to lose any of their funding. I believe that if the government would like better educated teachers, they should find a way to produce more money for the education system. Taking money away from schools should never be a part of the solution.
The blog by Sandra Stotsky talks about the problems in Education schools. As the nation is in a state of panic because of the "failing" schools, the public is looking for a solution. Firing "bad" teachers, or making higher stakes for teachers when test scores come out are two of the current ways that the government is dealing with the problem. Stotsky brings up the question of why we look to fix the aftermath, but not the system that produced the problems. Stotsky suggests having teachers become more educated in the area that they will be teaching. As of now, elementary education teachers get a broad degree, which she suggests is not sufficient. Stotsky suggests that for grades k-4 the teachers should attend a 3-year intensive institute, where the students are only picked from the top 25%. Grades 5-12, she suggests, should have a MA or MS in the area that he or she will be teaching. If the requirements are tightened up, then teachers will be more knowledgeable and therefore more successful. What I thought was interesting was that she suggests that there should be no federal funding for schools, rather use that money to do teacher evaluations, research and further teacher education. The overall point of the article was that if we are producing failing schools, and the government blames that on the teachers, we may want to look at the institutions that are producing the failing teachers.
The article relates to many things that have been discussed in class. First of all, the constant question of : what should we do about the failing schools?" is being answered once again. However, this time, the article talks of helping the teachers become better educated, rather than just blame the teachers, and do nothing to help them. The article also addresses the topic of teacher requirements. In class we have discussed the ways in which teacher education has grown and changed throughout the decades. In this article, Stotsky is throwing a new idea out on the table. Rather than tighten testing, as we have been doing in the past, the U.S. should fix the teacher education schools. The idea could be a monumental change in the United States teacher education system.
I agree and disagree with this article. I agree with the fact that teacher education programs do need to do a better job of preparing students for the future. As said in the article, many teachers graduate, join the workforce, and say to his or herself "I am not prepared for this". Although I do not feel that I will not be prepared, I do believe that teacher education programs could have higher standards, and higher course content, that would better prepare the teachers. Each teacher education school is different, however I believe that making the entrance requirements and graduation requirements more difficult would be a good idea. I agree that teachers could be better educated, however I do not believe that better education would solve the problem. I believe that there are many other issues such as SES, school funding, and many other things that contribute to failing schools. Saying that the key answer is to better educate teachers, once again places the blame on the teachers, which is not fair. I also disagree that funding should be taken away from the schools. Although it would still be invested in the school through the teachers, I do not think that any school, especially the failing ones, can afford to lose any of their funding. I believe that if the government would like better educated teachers, they should find a way to produce more money for the education system. Taking money away from schools should never be a part of the solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)