Education is like a horrible cliché

Education is like baking a cake.

Since I don't know much (read: anything) about baking this is going to be an interesting one to write. However, I have seen most of an episode of Iron Chef: America, so I assume I'm qualified for this.

Picture your ingredients as your subject matter. Each person is going to take a little more of one thing and a little less of another. That's okay! That gives variety to people, just as there is variety to flavors of cake. So everyone takes a little bit of everything. However, there should be a little bit of everything. If something is missing, say you never took a course in the arts, that's like missing sugar. It's going to lead to a fairly bitter existence. Perhaps some people like it that way (Not implying that diabetics can't appreciate art.), but the majority of people/cakes would greatly benefit from at least some. 

Now, once all the ingredients are added, you want to make sure that they are all well-incorporated. When you're eating a cake, it's not just eggs, milk, flour, and sugar all cooked at 325 degrees. They're mixed beforehand, which is something that needs to be emphasized in education. Learning about history is great. Learning about art is great. Learning about history's influence on the arts: magnificent! That's what truly makes a great education. 

Now onto the boring bit of this assignment:

I was not aware of all the different ways that students could be put at risk of dropping out. To me, many of them seem fairly insignificant, until you think about it, at which point you realize how crazy it must be to deal with any of these things. I liked learning about the different educational philosophies. There are so many, and yet they all have their own merits. Lastly, I liked learning about how IEPs help students. The idea of an IEP to me makes so much sense that I can't immediately see why they're not more universal. For example, why do only exceptionalities get them?

Diverse Materials

World War I and II, English monarchs, the French Revolution, the Cold War. 

What do all these very common high school history topics have in common? They're focused on white people. As a general rule in my high school's curriculum, we never learned about any non-White or Hispanic society, unless it somehow related to America or Europe. For example, we studied the colonization of Africa, and we studied Japan during WWII. However, never anything besides that.

So this lack of diversity in what we teach can only lead to social intolerance and ignorance out in the world. Upon graduation, kids think they know everything important that there is. But they don't know anything about South America, so therefore it must not be important. This is a lousy system, as it simply fosters inequality.

In addition to inflating the egos of white males, it's also something that's lacking in its own right. You should know about these countries because it's interesting and important just on its own. The better informed you are about what is going on in the rest of the world, the better suited you are to make decisions in your own neck of the woods.

So in conclusion, we should have subject matter that appeals to everyone. Singling out a certain group, whether you're being overly critical or touting everything they do, does everyone a disservice.

WWJD?: Who Was John Dewey?

John Dewey is the founder of the educational and philosophical movement known as pragmatism. This mustachioed gentleman believed that there were problems with the Western education system. So being the innovator that he was, he just went off and made his own system.

What he came up with was a model of education which focused on how to live with and be a part of change. Previously, the education system tried to exist solely within the mind, not realizing that the events were going on around them and possibly even because of them.

He noted three characteristics of nature, which he called the "precarious", the "histories", and the "ends".


The Precarious is any event that might eventually pose a problem. Really it's just anything that can set other things in motion, regardless of whether it's positive or negative.

History is meant to mean a pattern of change with an outcome that comes as a result of the Precarious which can easily be predicted.

But just being able to see what is probably going to happen is pretty much useless unless you decide to do something about it, right? And so that brings us to his last bit: the Ends. He described the Ends as being a deliberate outcome of the History.

This is the central idea behind his new form of education. Constant fluctuation in order to stay on top of things. Being able to roll with the punches is key in a modern, rapidly changing world. Therefore he promoted a democratic attitude, as that is the most readily changing form of government, given that it can change as fast as people need or want it to change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When someone says that something is pragmatic, what do they mean? They mean it's of or relating to pragmatism, but what they really mean is "That sounds useful." So that's really what it comes down to. You're using a system whose entire focus is on finding usefulness in an environment. Of course that's going to be a good system to teach. Without it, we might as well still be teaching like the Greek philosophers, perpetually naval-gazing.


-J

Sources:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/160445/John-Dewey
http://infed.org/mobi/john-dewey-on-education-experience-and-community/

Behaviorism

Behaviorism is the philosophy that everyone learns through repeated involvement or conditioning. The two major forms of conditioning are classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Behaviorism basically says that we have little control over ourselves, it's all dependant on our environment. We conform to the environment, not the other way around. All schools on some level use operant conditioning in that you're incentivized to do well by being given good grades, right? So if you're being given bad grades for not doing the work, you're likely to conform, do the work, and receive good grades.

A Picture of John B. Watson, the father of behaviorism.


You can do a lot through conditioning: change habits, instill fear, sway loyalty. Behaviorists believe that by learning more about human nature and why these things are possible, that we will be able to solve many of the problems of government, war, and education.

So what do behaviorists believe about education? They believe that people are supposed to be learning. They feel that if students are not learning then there is something in the system that is discouraging learning. It should be enough to just be surrounded by interesting things. You hear about backwoods rednecks who can fix a truck's engine with a kettle and some string. They can do that because they are put in an environment where having those skills are rewarded, and because they are constantly learning, and with no textbooks around they learned about engines.

I like the behaviorism approach. If it can lead a dog to salivate, why can't it lead a kid to learn. Maybe it's because my whole schooling was pretty much one big lesson in behaviorism: "If I don't do my homework, I won't be ready for the test. If I don't get a good grade on the test, I won't get a good overall grade. If I don't get a good overall grade, my parents will surely hate me. I better do my homework." That's operant conditioning at its finest. It's what got me through school.

Is Inclusion effective?

While many places tout the successes of Inclusion, if it were that absolutely a good thing, I don't think it would be talked about this much. One can assume something is a successful practice in a school if it increases the quality of the education. Perhaps the most objective means of measuring success in a school is the graduation rate, which does not bode well for policy:

As the inclusion rate increases, the graduation rate decreases. 

Now, I don't know about you, but I think this is a very important fact, and one which our textbook completely overlooks. The rate of inclusion for eighth graders went from 28.0% to 38.2% (a 34 percent increase) in five years. However, the graduation rate for students with disabilities went from 26.8% to 26.7%. While granted, there are loads of things that could also be contributing to this, one must ask if it's truly effective. Even if it's just a curious happenstance that it went down slightly, that the graduation rate would have dropped with or without this program, one is forced to ask why it wasn't raised from where it would otherwise have been.

So perhaps inclusion just isn't done correctly, as Angela Richeson in her paper titled "Factors Affecting the Success of Inclusion". She suggests that teachers need to be shown how to run an included classroom properly. She says that the rate of success will increase as we get teachers who are better at dealing with the situation. So even though the teachers haven't worked it out yet, there is still hope for the program.

But isn't that something that should be worked out before you implement it in a classroom? While I understand some things need to be tested under real-world conditions, these are the lives and futures of children that we are essentially gambling with. Therefore, I think the program should be suspended such a time as teachers are properly trained.

http://www.comaat.biz/Inclusion_Strategies_Brochure_(LEGAL).pdf
http://www.inclusion-international.org/priorities/education/policies/
http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/advocacyinaction/Inclusion_GradRates.shtml
http://gothenburg.k12.ne.us/StaffInfoPg/Papers/A_Richeson.pdf

-J

Why students from a foreign language background be taught English

I understand that immigrating to a new country is difficult: I get that this is exacerbated when you don't speak the language of the country. I understand that and I sympathize. However difficult it may be to do, learning a foreign language is one of the best things you can do, particularly if you're in a situation where you need to speak the language in a daily context.

I understand that many people dislike learning foreign languages. I feel that it is up there with math for most hated subject. But once you get past the conjugation tables and the vocab, you realize how rewarding it actually is. I understand that it's tricky to get the hang of, and I'm sure most people here have had a traumatic experience with it in high school, but since when do we exempt kids from learning those things that are most important. 

The host of benefits isn't even limited to the international students: They can benefit anybody.

Studies have found that learning a second language can help you in almost every other area of academics. It has been shown to improve attention span, memory, listening skills, critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and creativity. Now, we can all agree that these are undeniably good things. If there were a program set up that was shown to improve these things in most cases, we'd be trying to shove as many kids into that program as possible. Add in the fact that this also teaches them to ask where the bathroom is, and it's a goldmine. 

Many places when looking at prospective employees will give preference to someone who knows one or more languages. When educating kids, isn't that what we are ultimately preparing them for? Finding a job? So this simple thing allows the kid to become more attractive to employers without them getting grades any higher than they would otherwise be getting. 

It even helps prevent degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, while also making your brain bigger. That's not just an expression either. When comparing people undergoing intense language training with medical students, the brains of the language-learners were noticeably bigger than those of the medical students. This is despite the fact that in both cases the subjects were asked to learn massive amounts of information in a very short amount of time. 

I feel therefore that any student who does not know English should be made to learn it. It will help him in all other aspects of his life, and is therefore preferable to the other alternatives. 

If you want to be constantly bombarded with reasons to learn a foreign language, follow @SalemLanguages on Twitter. It is run by the World Languages and Cultures dept.

Sources: http://www.care2.com/causes/6-reasons-to-learn-a-foreign-language-and-help-your-brain.html

              http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/06/07/4926143/ask-mr-dad-learning-a-foreign.html

Healthy Foods

I remember my first day of my new school way back in 8th grade. I wandered into the lunch hall, bought myself a soda, a cheeseburger, and a cookie. "This is amazing," I thought. "I can buy whatever I want!" The next day went much the same way, but with a soda, two slices of pizza, and a Klondike Bar. You can see where this is going. When kids have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves, they almost invariably make the one that will bring them the most immediate happiness.

To my horror, the very next year there was no more soda to be found. Instead, there was a selection of flavored waters and teas. Where there was once a freezer stocked with ice cream, there was now a salad bar. My school had gone from feeding me real sustenance to feeding me rabbit food. I was crushed! How does anyone live like this? The answer: Easily and healthily.

Obesity, Diabetes, Hypertension. All things that you don't want appearing on a medical chart. Having school lunches high in saturated fats and cholesterol raises the likelihood of children being diagnosed with these chronic diseases. So by eliminating some of the more unhealthy food, we're actually lengthening kids' lives. Sounds great!

However, what are we going to replace the junk with? Kids are notoriously picky eaters: If it's not Mac'n Cheese or a hotdog, they don't want it. I think this is where the problem comes in. You have to make food that's appetizing to most kids, which means that eliminating the already limited options is hardly a good idea, unless you can add in things to take its place.

After taking a look through a list of healthy alternatives to a typical packed lunch here, I determined one thing: children would be pissed. As adults with (hopefully) more defined pallets than a seven year old, we can note that many of these things are actually very good. But tell a little kid that you're taking away his Oreos and replacing them with trail mix, and you're likely to be on the receiving end of a tantrum.

So what is the best option then? Have students grow fat and unhealthy? Mandate what kids can and can't eat? I think that as we are presumably not a pediatrician intimately familiar with this child's medical history, we shouldn't be doling out medical advice. It should be up to the kid's doctors and parents to de
cide what he can or can't eat. Maybe there's a kid out there with Uncommon Condition #5, wherein he has to consume double a normal calorie diet. He'd have to eat somewhere in the range of 230 cups of undressed salad, something unattainable with restrictions on what he's allowed to eat.

True, I didn't make the healthy options when I was given tastier options, but I was also 90 pounds fully clothed, soaking wet, and holding a rock. I wasn't the people who are being targeted by this program.

Besides, with today's fancy-pants technology, where many kids pay for lunch with pre-paid debit cards anyways, is it so far-fetched to send a statement to the child's parents telling them what the child bought? That puts the decisions in the hands of the parents and doctors, and would help teach the child responsibility.

Sources:
http://www.pcrm.org/health/healthy-school-lunches/
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Obesity/38327

Why teach? 

There are a million and one professions out there. Why would you want to teach?

Most people think of the benefits of teaching in terms of days off. If you're just looking for time off, become a tax preparer, where you work January 2nd through April 15th. That's a crappy reason to become a teacher. Most people don't even consider teaching, because they make little money given the amount of work that has to be put in. However, there are piles and piles of teachers, so why do they all do it?

Teachers recognize that one day the world will be run by people who are right now only five years old. They want to make sure that the right five year-olds are the ones running it. But how do you know which five year old is going to make the best president fifty years from now? So what do you do? You have to make every five year-old ready to take on whatever they need to do in their life. Whether that's running a country, or being a night manager at a convenience store, it's up to the educators to prepare them for that. That's why many teachers teach. 

Teachers can be the embodiment of whatever they feel is important. They can teach kindness, ambition, wisdom, courage, tenacity, or any other of a dozen things. You can show these children how to act, how to behave, and how to care. All of that takes place while teaching important material too. Which brings me to my next point.

Material. Some teachers want to teach because they love what they're teaching more than actually teaching it. By constantly being involved in your material, you become much better at it. Also, it makes you strive to become better and better at it. There's always that threat that a student might one day come back and be better than you. Now, while this a good sign (see point one), it'd still be embarrassing. 

However, all of these reasons are still not enough. In order to be a truly successful teacher, you have to care about the students above all else. You have to care about them enough to make it worth not making that much money. Students get out of a program what you, as a teacher, put into it, and it is therefore your responsibility to make it as rewarding for them as possible.

Also teachers get summers off which is nice.

Resources used:

http://calteach.berkeley.edu/CalTeachNewsMar2009.pdf

http://712educators.about.com/od/teacherresources/tp/teachergood.htm

http://www.unc.edu/uncbest/teacher.html

This is an interesting chart that shows how having good teachers affects students.

All the Best,

-J

INTRODUCTION

Hey all!

This is the blog I'll be using for my EDU 100 course, where I discuss the premise of school and the way education affects us all.

I'm glad to have you all here. Enjoy your stay.

-J

USEFUL LINKS

Here are some of my favorite educational links:

http://www.reddit.com/r/science - Good for keeping up-to-date in the scientific community.

mathisfun.com - Doesn't directly teach things, but has some fairly interesting math-based games on it.

Also Reffonomics.com is a good reference site for economics, although it's probably over the heads of most kids.