Great Educator

The immediate cultural context of children and youth includes family, neighborhood, and youth culture, including media influences.  Dewey argued that social influences are the “great educator” and that schools are only a secondary agency.  What educational problems and possibilities are presented to teachers by these cultural contexts, and why do you see these as problems and possibilities?  What difference can and should teachers make to learners if schools are secondary to the wider society in their influence?  By what means should teachers seek to make the difference, and why?  In your response, consider more than one kind of neighborhood and family context.

   

      Society is constantly evolving and 2012 is no different.  Cultural context brought on to children through family, neighborhoods, and youth cultures are "great educators" as Dewey suggested.  Many things learned in a child's everyday life are not things that can be taught in schools.  Media influences, especially today, play such an important role in the culture of the world's youth.  Access to popular social networking sites, such as Facebook or Twitter, puts instant connectivity in the hands of many adolescents.  Ten to fifteen years ago it would take a day for news to spread around a small community.  Today that juicy bit of gossip is instantly 'tweeted' and everyone is made aware.  If as educators we don't think this influences a child's thinking and learning we are kidding ourselves.

      There are many problems associated with the evolution of society and its impact on the youth of our country.  Speaking from an educational standpoint, teachers fall into two categories.  Those that disregard cultural contexts and those that embrace it.  In order to reach a child in today's digital times teachers should be able to relate to their students in more ways than the pulpit in front of the classroom.  Using the very things that kids use in their daily lives can open an enormous amount of opportunities for teachers to have at their disposal.  Using the internet, whether through the social networking sites or even student friendly blogs, could help catch interest and classroom discussion could take place outside the school building.  Students love listening to their MP3 players and what better way to present a lesson than in the form of a podcast?  Many different aspects could benefit children if teachers are so inclined.

      If schools truly are secondary to the outside world then what impact do teachers have on children anyway?  This statement presents a fallacy to the educational system as a whole.  Educators may not be able to grab the attention of every single child for every single minute of instruction.  The attentions that they do obtain for however long are the ones that make schooling worthwhile.  Students learn a lot from their environment.  Much like a baby learns to speak in its native language, children learn from the world around them.  When they are in school, learning is taking place in one form or another.  Educators are in a position to really have an impact (hopefully positive) on the minds and attitudes of today's youth.  What they teach and how they teach it is the 'what' students gain from attending school.

      To really make a difference, every educator owes it to their students to provide learning by any means necessary.  If a teacher is located in a lower income school, and another is in a higher income neighborhood, those educators will teach the material differently.  Which way is better becomes the real question.  The answer is that neither is wrong, as long as the material being taught is same.  Delivery is just that, a way for one to present material to another.  Take as an example, a salad bar at your local restaurant.  If two people go to the bar and make a salad, chances are that they will have two completely different products by the time they sit down to eat.  The end product is a salad.  Did both people accomplish that task?  Did they make the exact same salad?  The answers of course bring back the point that the 'how' didn't really matter, as long as the end was the same.  Teachers need to get creative with the 'how' today to really grab student interest and challenge them to think critically.

      Society is still evolving and will continue to evolve forever.  Students who live in the society will immediately change to have their needs met.  Teachers and educators too must change and evolve with them in order for learning to take place and not take a backseat as Dewey suggests.  Will this be challenging for some?  Of course it will, but things have always been this way.  Nothing today is different than yesterday.  Education evolves much as society does and it is the duty of those involved to be aware and open about evolving with it.

Teacher Intimidation...

Many teachers feel alienated from the school reform movement and prefer to remain uninvolved in these issues such as school governance, yet it is argued that true reform will not occur without the investment of teachers, the people charged with actually implementing change.  Why might some teachers choose not to be involved?  What reasons might you offer to encourage greater participation?  What would it take for you to see yourself as a change agent for school reform?

I think that many teachers are intimidated when it comes to school reform.  For many years, we have sat behind our desks and taught to the test just as our administrators indirectly asked us to.  When the budget was cut so drastically in the last legislative session, many teachers watched as their peers were forced to leave the profession.  The realization set in rather quickly that we should all be thankful to even have jobs in education.  This was an interesting feeling, especially since a few years prior the state was practically begging for teachers and calling a shortage. 

For true reform to take place, teachers will have to rise up and stand up to big government.  If we do not, then the changes taking place most likely will not represent our way of thinking concerning the education of today's youth.  I feel as an instructional leader the first place I would encourage my staff to get involved is locally.  By volunteering to be a part of the campus and/or district improvement committee(s), teachers might have a better understanding of the changes that are actually taking place.  If they do not agree with some of the ideas being tossed around it is a perfect place for them to speak up and be heard.  I encourage all to become involved at this level, but often teachers already have a lot on their plate and do not feel compelled to heap on any more.

For me to see myself as a change agent for school reform is something that will take time.  I have my ideas, just like anyone else, but really want to be an educated and prepared individual to address any major issues.  This program is my first step in becoming the person who will have a say in our student's education.  My own children are just entering the public school system and I want to ensure they receive the best as well.

Schooling as I have known it...

Evaluate the quality of schooling as you have known it.  Was it marked by the weaknesses identified by reformers in this chapter, or did you largely attend schools other than those that are being identified as deficient?  Do you have criticisms that school reformers have not identified?  How might schools in different neighborhoods fare in the reformers’ views of what counts as a school in need of reform?  How might the David School fare?  What ideological and political-economic insights might be drawn from this student assessment of the quality of their schools?

      As I have known it, schooling was much better than I really thought.  I went to a smaller school district growing up and did very well.  Once in college, I felt that my teachers did not care too much for students and scraped by doing the bare minimum to earn a paycheck in my little 'podunk' town.  The reality looking back now that I am an educator, is that the teachers in that small school worked their tails off.  We were held to very high standards and a lot was expected of us as students.  The biggest area we lacked was funding.  Some of the much larger schools in the area often did better then us academically (and athletically), but this was primarily due to money.  We could not afford the newest and latest gadgets.  I have not been out of school for that long, and we had five computers in the high school where I graduated from.  Working in a smaller district today, I see the students through the eyes that most of my own teachers looked through.  We make the best of whatever situation we are in.  We don't accept anything less than excellence from students, and they may not realize it today, but they will down the road. 

Too much, not enough...

Jane Roland Martin believes that schooling focuses on “productive processes” (rational, objective, generalizable knowledge) to the exclusion of “reproductive processes” (caring, subjectivity, emotional expression) and argues that the concepts of a liberal education and an “educated person” must change to reflect both these qualities.  What you do think of her assertion? How could you successfully incorporate both these ways of knowing and experiencing into the classroom? 

       Jane Roland Martin's belief that schools focus too much on the productive processes and not enough on the reproductive processes is right on point.  Today's schools are so much more than students learning the three r's.  Unfortunately we as educators still tend to look only at test scores or AEIS reports as a measure of our success.  Subjects like art and music are taking a backseat because of budgetary concerns and this (Martin would argue) is unacceptable.  Teaching the whole child should be our goal and as any "educated person" would tell you includes many other areas than just the core subjects.  We have spoken about hidden curriculum and I feel that this is one way to incorporate more reproductive processes into schools.  Other areas include higher order thinking skills specifically through the use of writing.  Writing in itself is often an underused tool that educators should incorporate into every area of academics.  The thought processes that go into writing spill over into every area of a well rounded student.  Also, mentioned in an earlier post is the balance between the two.  There cannot be too much of one or not enough of the other.  For students to truly be "educated" they should be able to incorporate both.

Teaching Implications and Groups

The authors of your Tozer book contended that individuals succeed or fail in our society not simply due to their native abilities and applied efforts, but importantly on the basis of their membership in one or more ethnic, gender, or economic groups.  If this is true, what are the implications for teaching, learning and schooling?  Support your position with evidence and reasoned argument. 

      I feel that a student's ethnic, gender, or economic group does play a part in their success.  The opposite is also true in my opinion; a student's 'group' does not play a part in their failure.  The problem that any student has in whether they learn or not is through the teaching they receive.  The other major player is parental support, or family support.  No matter what 'group' a student falls into, the expectations for him or her should not be changed.  They should remain high and challenge the student.  Teachers should be sensitive to differences without being biased by group differences (Tozer, Senese, &Violas, 2009).  The family of a student can and should play a very supportive role in their education.  We know that this isn't always the case.  The reality is, that students with parents who are educated themselves typically support their children more.  The 'groups' we are discussing here probably lack parents with education.  Of course this isn't the rule by any means, but a valid point none the less.

       The implications for teaching, learning, and schooling is awareness.  Everyone involved in the schooling process needs to be aware of individual student makeup.  Anyone who has ever given a standardized test and studied the results knows that the 'groups' we speak of are important markers to judge overall teaching and learning.  If only the Anglo students do well, the teacher better change the way they are presenting material!  Many educators understand this dilemma, but few I feel really put into practice.  It is easy to get 'comfortable' doing what we do and unfortunately students fall through the cracks.

Tozer, S. E., Senese, G., & Violas, P. C. (2009).  School and Society.  New York, NY:

Blue or Brown?

Consider Jane Elliot’s famous classroom experiment, the Discrimination Day exercise, and discuss what sense can be made of it today.  Was she taking unjustifiable risks with the minds and characters of her students? 

       The Discrimination Day exercise was a very interesting experiment.  Watching the videos and listening to the teacher/children really made me think how something like this could be used today.  I think that this exercise could be used in various formats in an effort to express to chidren tolerance as well as compassion.  When Jane Elliot placed students in this environment they had no true idea what was going on.  I feel that this was what made the lesson so successful.  These kids weren't thinking about why brown eyed students were worse or better, just that they had the power.  Being a white male, it puts a lot of today's racial profiling and discrimination into perspective.  Because I do not receive any type of discrimination, I could possibly not even realize the 'power' I have.  So the saying goes, "walk a mile in another man's shoes".

       I do not feel that Mrs. Elliot was taking unjustifiable risks with the minds and characters of her students.  The experiment she performed on them was nothing more than a truth concerning human nature.  The students played into her game perfectly and the lesson that was ultimately learned was worth far more than the students feelings getting hurt for a day or two.  Those that were upset I assure you were more tolerant in the future than they would have been without.

Hidden Curriculum

Discuss the relationship between the meaning of hidden curriculum and the role of schools in cultural hegemony.  How does cultural hegemony affect what happens in public school classrooms?  How can understanding the concepts of cultural pluralism and assimilation impact how we think about education and marginalized groups within it in contemporary society?  The debate about education for its own sake versus education for a particular role in society continues today.  What are some of the ways you see this disagreement being played out in today’s educational environment? 

       Many aspects of today's schools relate directly to the way we as educators wish students to be once they assimilate into society.  The idea of hidden curriculum in schools is not a new one, but rather an interesting talking point that establishes some of these cultural norms.  Every school has standards and curriculum that must be taught to students.  As educators we strive daily to instruct students to master these standards and conform to a higher level of thinking.  Underlying these standards is the hidden curriculum.  As an example, we expect students to learn about being punctual and giving their best efforts.  These are re-enforced through turning in assignments on time, or doing extra credit.  Utilizing this hidden agenda has profound effects on students and carries over into every aspect of their lives.  This can be a true service that the school plays in shaping many different cultural norms in everyday society.

      The opposite could be said concerning these effects on society.  Is it really the place of the school to create and build on these social norms?  No matter what people expect in the real world, students attitudes and beliefs are shaped by the school systems they attend daily.  This is a powerful sentiment, and one in which educators should not take likely.  Especially younger students listen and take what their adult teachers say to heart.  We have a responsibility to teach this hidden curriculum that truly does shape America's youth.

      Understanding cultural pluralism and marginalized groups within contemporary society can help shape these hidden agendas we teach children today.  It has been stated by myself that it is the responsibility of teachers to let students know that everyone is equal and all should be respected.  Gender, race, and economic status should have nothing to do with how someone is treated or revered.  Cultural norms, as stated earlier, are shaped in the school house.  If it is made clear to students that equal means equal (even if it is an underlying message), then they will carry that message with them for the rest of their lives.

      Education for the sake of education is a laughable misconception that teachers and administrators would totally disagree with.  The future of our county is in the hands of the youth of today.  It is an undeniable fact that the more education someone has, the more successful they become.  The same can be said for a country.  The more educated Americans become, the more successful they become.  Society norms expect us to educate children.  This point is undisputed, but the real focus should be on what and how we teach children, not what we teach them.

      Many things taught in the classroom today have underlying effects on students.  Hidden messages are powerful ways in which educators can help shape the society of the future.  We have a responsibility to adhere to the highest and strictest standards of cultural norms.  What may be right for some, may no be right for all.

School Reform

Whose voices should be considered in the process of school reform--the voices of students, teachers, community members, local school board members. . .those of state- and/or federal-level politicians?  What is the level of impact that each of these stakeholders has on the system as we know it?  What are the moral, philosophical, and social ramifications of the power, or lack thereof, of each of these voices?  What voices are present at the David School?

      As the old expression says, "it takes a village to raise a child".  The process of school reform should involve every member of society in any way possible.  The students of today are the leaders of tomorrow and their future in a small way is our future as well.  Some of the individuals included in this process may very well have a bigger role than others, but every voice should be heard.  Students, teachers, the community, local school boards, and politicians each should have a say in how we 'raise a child'.
      Students today are more concerned with their education than that of yesteryear.  The amount of pressure placed on them to do well on standardized tests and enroll in the most prestigious universities is a reality faced on a daily basis.  Morally, our youth is faced with an abundance of distractions that could quickly derail any true progress they attempt to make.  The few that realize the importance of an education are quick to stand up and voice their opinion.  Is their voice heard however?  The answer is no, and in many ways adults could learn a lot by listening to these children.  
     Teachers and administrators play the most crucial role in educating our future societal members.  Their voices raise loud and proud when facing tough choices in educational reform.  The main concern held by these individuals is that the 'higher ups' in the actual policy making forums don't hear their opinions most of the time.  The power to make choices in teaching students rests solely in this groups hands.  No matter what law is passed, what happens after children walk through the front doors of the school house, is ultimately up to them.  Their opinions should matter.  Their professional expertise should be headed and all to often it is not.
      Politicians run for election based on a platform to get elected.  Promises made during elections typically seem to go to the wayside once a person takes office.  Education reform is a topic that many politicians stay away from during elections, and for good reason.  In the media only the issues that seem controversial make it to the ears of the public.  If you promise the moon, you had better have a good plan to get it.  The reality once again, is that the prize sought costs a great deal of money and it's easier to cut education budgets than it is to tax people even more.  That sure will not get you elected!  Once in office, the decisions concerning education reform fall to individuals that don't even work with children, and in most cases, set unrealistic expectations and goals that is directly tied to the money schools so desperately fight for.  The voices of these individuals should be heard as members of a society where we only want the best for our students.  Unfortunately in today's times it seems like their voice is the only one being heard.
      In the David school opinions matter.  The students, the teachers, and members of the community have one goal in mind:  student success.  They want to help and encourage children to better themselves in any way possible.  The only way to motivate a child is make them responsible for their own well-being and provide them with the pathway to get there.  Schools could learn a thing or two from this type of design.
     Students, teachers, the community, local school boards, and politicians each should have a say in how we 'raise a child'.  Power is skewed today concerning education.  Holding a carrot in front of educators and telling them when and how to eat it is not going to make students (or the educators) work any harder to succeed.  The responsibility lies on society as a whole to make sure our future is secure.  Listening to the opinions of all concerning education reform is one step that the country could take in an effort to promote success and rise to a level of global marketplace competition that it so desperately seeks.

No child left behind...

Can a democracy afford to socialize major parts of its population to accept less education and intellectual development than the society is capable of offering or should Dewey’s all around growth for every member of society be the fundamental aim for all citizens?  Can the limited intellectual demands of low-skill occupations define our educational aims for the millions of people who will one day fill those occupations?  Or should they be educated to the limits of their capacity, partly because each parent should (and usually does) want the greatest possible intellectual, emotional, and moral development of his or her children?  And if human development for its own sake is our educational ideal, what kind of school experiences will help bring about such development? 

      I feel that everyone should be able to accomplish what they see fit in their own life.  It is not a 'socialization' of certain members of the population, but rather a choice made by individuals.  As educators we need to continue encouraging all children to give 110% and become life-long learners.  Dewey's all around growth is an excellent argument for all citizens.  The only problem I have is that not everyone is suited for the same things.  This decision cannot be made by the government (especially at a young age) as it is in other countries.  It must be left to the individual to 'discover' for themselves.  The concrete and abstract thinking that such decisions take does not develop until a later age.  If we provide students with a top notch education and the opportunity to discover their potential, what is wrong with that?  Limited intellectual demand occupations don't and shouldn't shape our educational strategies.  The reality is, however, that some members of society are suited for these jobs. 
       Yes we should educate children to their limits and expect nothing but greatness from them.  Parents of course play a major role in the intellectual, emotional, and moral development of their children.  More so in my opinion than the school house.  This is no excuse however and we should hold children (regardless of parental support) to these high standards.  The issue I have is that not all will rise to the occasion.  Many do not want to go on to college.  Many who do well in school want to get out and begin working right away.  Why should we tell them this is not OK?  I am sure I will receive flak for that statement, but as educators we owe it to children to give them the best learning and show them the way for their own development.  You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
       School experiences that help enrich human development are ones with real world applications.  In Texas we are so focused on tests that students don't get the same chances to explore what they really want from life, even as we did not so long ago.  The day of the guidance counselor providing career advice is over.  The counselor of today is planning training for teachers on what to do/not do while giving the test!  The only place it seems many get guidance for career planning is an English course that makes students write a research paper on a career of their choice.  What does this tell kids?  Do they think we really care if they become life-long learners (whether that be in the auto mechanics field or dentistry who cares?)?  Sometimes I feel that maybe they don't believe we care as much as we do.  Somehow we need to make school a fun place to learn.  Students should know that we expect nothing but their best, and they will be willing to give it.

Marginalized Groups...

Think about the chapters on African-Americans, Native Americans, and women in terms of what lessons can be learned from developing an understanding of the history and educational experiences of each marginalized group.  For example, how was the marginalization of this group legitimized?  What did “equal educational opportunity” mean in terms of this group and how was it actualized?  Are any remnants of or similarities to this type of marginalization evident in our system today?

     History in general can teach us a lot about life.  It is the great expression "learn from your mistakes".  I think that anyone who wants to make themselves or something better has to first look at what has been done before and where (if any) it went wrong.  Concerning minorities and education, a lot can be deduced and interpreted.  What was once considered 'equal' may not mean the same thing today.  African-Americans have been treated poorly from the onset of American colonization.  They have faced hatred and bigotry.  They have endured racism and fights for equality.  Some could argue that today African-Americans are equal.  The truth is that in some ways they are not.  Women have faced the same uphill battle.  They continue to fight the same fight today.  Men continue to make more money, hold higher level jobs, and consider themselves superior.  A group not mentioned in this response question is that of the Mexican-American.  This is the fastest growing group in our society.  They face constant criticism in the media and a lack of support in the school systems.  Learning this history makes people more aware.  We can learn from our mistakes as a country or society and move towards true equality.  The marginalization of these groups is not legitimate in any sense of the word.  We must go forth in fighting for educational rights and opportunities for minorities.  It starts with us as educators and trickles into the home.

Gender Equity

Do you think the problem of gender bias has been overblown?  Is there any merit to the argument that boys lose out as much as girls do, just in different ways, in schools today?  How do you want to approach the issue of gender in your own schools and districts?  How is the issue of gender bias (or lack thereof) illustrated at the David School (from the Country Boys video)?

       Gender bias has been an issue in America for many years.  Historically, women have been less likely to do well in school, go to college, or hold positions of authority.  Women have been oppressed in other areas as well, including equal rights held by all (voting rights, property rights, etc.).  The issue of the education of girls has been on the forefront of school policy since the 1960's and even more so in the early 1980's-'90's.  Adjustments have been made.  Research has been conducted.  The results today are that women are out performing men in almost every aspect of schooling.  I do not feel that the problem of gender bias has been overblown.  This has been a real issue in our society.  I do feel however, that the tides have changed.  Female students have worked hard to overcome deficits, and teachers have worked hard to make up for any short change that may have taken place.
      Male students today may seem to have an advantage, but I feel that is due to the makeup of school personnel.  Typically in elementary schools more women are teachers than men.  As the child gets older, more males start to emerge as the teacher of record.  This is not always the case, but more male teachers work in secondary schools for the most part.  Female students may be quick to argue that these teachers favor the males.  On some level maybe they do.  As a male teacher, it is much easier to connect with a male student than a female student.  This is primarily due to complications that could arise if you do establish a teaching relationship with a female.  This may not seem fair, but it is a reality many males might not speak of.  No professional wants to put himself in a situation that could be misconstrued as inappropriate.  This may not be the excuse, but perhaps it is an explanation of some of the 'advantage' males students appear to have.
      In my own school, an elementary school, I have come to some realizations on gender equity.  The school predominately employees female teachers (43 to 2 males).  As an administrator, I deal quite a bit with discipline, and have found some interesting numbers that I will try to explain.  Of all the office referrals written this past year, 89% were male students.  Only 11% of every child sent to the office was a female.  Does this mean that males are the only trouble makers in my school?  Perhaps, but the explanation I feel is more like the example of the male high school teacher favoring boys.  Female teachers at the elementary level, maybe even on a sub-conscious level, feel more comfortable disciplining female students.  The boys are often in trouble for being to rowdy or causing distractions.  When asked if female students do the same, my teachers agreed that they do, but are more easily re-directed by the teacher.  I have no hard evidence to prove my theory, but it is an interesting point none the less.
      At the David school, it doesn't matter what gender you are.  Everyone is treated the same, and afforded the same opportunities as everyone else.  The idea is to save the child and prepare them for the future.  Gender does not play a critical role in my opinion.  Not just in the David school, but in all schools, males and females should be taught the same.  Differences in pedagogy may take place based on individualized instruction, but the anatomy of the child should make no difference to what they are taught.  The standards for the state of Texas are very clear.  They do not distinguish that males should learn one thing and females learn another.  
     Women have overcome a great deal in the history of this country.  Many opportunities that were not available to them (unfairly I might add), are now offered to all.  In other countries today women are not given the opportunity to be so free.  This is a sad and totally different story than the one I have been speaking of, but a reality unfortunately.  The gap is closing in my opinion.  The lines are shifting and most would agree that they have even been erased.  We must continue to do our jobs and guide children of all backgrounds and genders to learn at their highest potentials.

Seneca Falls Declaration

Discuss what appear to be the most important claims and resolutions made in the Seneca Falls Declaration.  Why do you think the twelfth and last resolution would have been only narrowly passed, instead of unanimously passed, as the others were?  Given your understanding of the history and educational experiences of women as a marginalized group, what lessons should the community of educators take away from this understanding?  

     The most important claims made in the Seneca Falls Declaration are that women are not treated the same as men.  It gives many examples of how men have kept women down and explains why these things will not be tolerated anymore.  Most notably, women do not have the right to vote, own property, or earn a similar wage.  Simply put, women realized they were being treated poorly and were not going to take it anymore.
     The last resolution of the Declaration would have only narrowly passed because men themselves had to take an active role in the implementation of its actions.  Men had to offer “…zealous and untiring efforts…” and be able to accept women in the workforce as their equals.  This was something many men would have a hard time with during the time.  Some today even find this hard to do.  Overthrowing ideals that had been around forever was a difficult task.  Many would have found giving unwavering support difficult.
     A community of educators today should realize that women and men are equal in every sense of the word.  This is true for all facets of life including rights, responsibilities, and actions.  As a marginalized group, women should also be held to the same standards as men concerning education, roles, and accountability.  Once again, just my two cents!

Social-efficiency Liberals

Charles Eliot and other social-efficiency liberals believed that they were serving the interests of democracy with their vision of progressive education.  Explain their point of view according to their conception of democracy.  Evaluate their educational and political points of view by using your definition of the educational requirements of democracy.

     Charles Eliot and other social-efficiency liberals view’s on education would be greatly debated today.  As with most thinking in the early 20th century; a class system and hierarchy ruled by racism existed in their beliefs.  On the flip side of the argument, during his time, Eliot was regarded as an education genius with ideas that only enhanced the common good of American citizens.  His major focus was that of employable skills.  Everyone should learn, but schools should prepare students with skills for the workplace.  These skills (because of the time period) were gender bias as well as race bias, but were driven to provide everyone with a path to further their learning.  The educational opportunities provided to students in theory was not the true design.  Equal opportunity was not truly equal.  Preparing students for different occupational outcomes could be seen as undemocratic.  The progressive interpretation of equal educational opportunity, however, made the differentiated curriculum appear democratic (Tozer et al, 2009, p. 159). 
      Eliot also argued that students could contribute to a more democratic society if they were taught "to respect and confide in the expert in every field of human activity" (Tozer et al, 2009, p. 159).  Every member of society could serve a purpose to its overall 'goodness'.  Unfortunately, the poor would stay poor and the rich would stay rich.  Opportunity during this time was ultimately provided based on class and wealth.  If your father was a lawyer then you too could possibly become a lawyer.  If you were raised on a farm, then you could forget about being a lawyer.  But hey! You still serve a purpose, right? 
      Today, Eliot's ideas served a huge purpose in shaping the way schools are run.  The ideals behind some of these purposes has of course changed.  Democracy allows people of all races, religions, or class to advance and better themselves.  This is the ideals we really should keep in mind when educating children.  Once again, just my two cents!

References:
Tozer, S.E., Senese, G., and Violas, P.C. School and society: Historical and contemporary perspectives (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rita

How would the David School be different if Rita was principal?

      Rita is a different kind of leader. She possesses all the qualities many educational leaders strive for. She is patient, kind, hands-on, trustworthy, and friendly. She believes in her students to succeed and is willing to get to know them in order for them to do so. The David School is a place that Rita would be highly successful herself. The things they stand for and the people that they serve are all in line with the qualities Rita has. She would be a great addition to the David School.
      Rita is a change agent in every sense. She recognizes problems and looks for ways to correct them. The David School as an entity is a change agent too. It takes in troubled youth and those that are very behind. They believe that this type of student can and will succeed. Rita perhaps could have a strong impact on these students as well. She will relate to them on a personal level. She will get to know them and earn their trust. She will guide them in their efforts and ensure they will not be set up for failure. Change happens one person at a time. In the David School run by Rita, each child would be seen as an individual.
     The administrator that is the instructional leader is more powerful than a boss. Rita is an instructional leader. She is a principal, but she is a teacher first. At the David School, Rita would have to be both. Her roots as a teacher would allow her a deeper ownership of the success/failures of the school's students. As the principal, she could use her experience and success to guide others under her authority. The school would benefit from having Rita at the helm.
     Rita would be a great addition to the David School. She is a change agent. She is an instructional leader. She is a caring human being that puts children first. The David School strives to build lifelong learners. Rita herself is a lifelong learner and would make it a priority to instill this value into every student. She would be a very good fit for the school. The integrity of an institution is only as good as its leader. Rita is a woman of the highest integrity.

The Blame game...

To what extent are the administrators and/or the teachers responsible for the inequities at Wilson and the other dilemmas?

I think that to every extent the administration and teachers are responsible for the inequities at Wilson.  Parents of course did have influence on these individuals, but the staff implemented the social stratification in the first place.  This is no different than 'separate but equal' that took place in the '50s.  These administrators especially should have known better.  They allowed this to happen and if sit here and say they didn't realize what was going on we are just as jaded as they were.  The real issue is leadership that didn't want to sacrifice their careers fighting parents for what is right.  The teachers too are to blame for allowing such things to happen on their campus.  The 'upper' level arts teachers of course liked the way things had been designed.  They should all be reassigned to different areas or retire from teaching all together.  I am sure they could open up some private schools for teaching the arts in the community.  The upper class white parents would probably pay them well.

 

Rita the leader...

Why do you think Rita can be regarded as a leader with a social justice perspective?  What might have contributed to her embrace of that perspective?  What are the obstacles, dilemmas, or professional dangers of adopting a social justice perspective?

Time and time again in the article, Rita is regarded as a leader who really connects with students.  She is portrayed as someone who goes beyond race or class stratification.  She looks at the child and measures her success based on fixing deficits.  Many problems are apparent at Wilson and to correct them will take Rita numerous hours of hard work and frustration.  The article eludes to the fact that she didn't know anything was wrong while she was a teacher at Wilson.  I find it hard to believe that she didn't see the segregation while she was at Wilson.  This point aside, many obstacles and dilemmas will be in her way.  The current model of stratification has been in place for many years.  This alone would be hard for anyone to change.  The second obstacle will be the support the programs have from the higher class parents.  When changes are made that are not favorable to the elite, these parents will pressure the superintendent and the school board.  If they realize the changes that need to take place, perhaps Rita can begin to truly implement some social justice at Wilson.  If not, she may very well find herself looking for a new job.  This is a bad situation for anyone to be in.  It will really test the moral beliefs that she has.  To me, the first step she will need to take is converting the basic course teachers to her way of thinking (they probably already do), then she will have some numbers to back up her beliefs within the school.

 

School District Goals and the David School...

What should our goals be for our districts' students? How will you achieve those goals? What do the David School's goals appear to be? Use the concepts of knowledge, skills, and dispositions as ways to prompt your thinking about goals. Justifications might address what you think is good for a person’s happiness and fulfillment as an individual, or might address what kind of society you wish to contribute to with your educational practice.


As a district, our goal should be to create lifelong learners whose minds and bodies are cultivated to become thriving members of society.  It is very difficult to reach this goal, especially with testing mandates and AYP.  I strive for every child to be successful however I do feel that college is not for everyone.  This does not mean that education must stop.  Some students would benefit more by going to trade schools, etc.  On the job training is invaluable for all employees of any business.  How many of us felt truly prepared for every aspect of teaching on the first day of school in our own classroom based entirely upon what we learned in college?  No one.  The David School gives every student the opportunity to succeed regardless of their situation.  This is a noble strategy that we all should take to our own campuses.  A person's happiness and fulfillment as an individual may not be the same as our own, or their best friend, or the politicians who make rules for such students.  To mold young minds is an art form and sometimes self-exploration for an individual is the true path to their happiness. 

Classic liberalism a commitment to nationalism?

 One of the tenets of classic liberalism was a commitment to nationalism. Discuss briefly what arguments this concept provoked in Jefferson’s time, and examine whether there might be parallels in today’s discussions over civic education, bilingual education and the use of terms such as African-American, Asian American, Irish American, etc.

     So many things have happened in our history that define us as "American".  These things all give us a sense of nationalism at some level.  As mentioned in some of the earlier posts, tragedy and war, are both times that Americans really seem to come together and define themselves as Americans.  Other times we have pride happens every four years during the Olympics.  The sense of pride we have really spills over into the world as a whole and many want to experience that sense of 'nationalism'. 
      When the original colonists wanted to free themselves from tyranny and evil they came together to accomplish that goal.  Paralleling with today, many Americans identify with the original beliefs held by those colonists.  Unfortunately, the United States is a melting pot of many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds.  Many Americans still hold onto their heritage from outside of the US but remain American in every sense of the word.  African-American, Asian American, etc. is a way for these individuals to hold onto their backgrounds.
      To change the concept of nationalism would be impossible.  The very things that we still argue about today were the very things the liberalist were fighting for.  Freedom is not tied to only White Protestant Americans.

The exploitation and social exclusion of individuals

The exploitation and social exclusion of individuals based on race, gender, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, etc. is a phenomenon that prevailed in Jefferson’s time and is still apparent today. Discuss how this notion of exclusion is evident in our contemporary system of education. In your view, how can teachers best address this phenomenon?

     Through the reading, I found the principles of the founding fathers very interesting.  "All men are created equal" has a different meeting today than it did in the 18th century, but the foundations of exclusion still exist even in schools today.  There have been major movements in civil rights in America within the past 50 years.  These 'major' movements have desegregated schools and have fought to give minorities equal rights.  Today these issues still exist but others are also apparent concerning the exclusion of individuals. 

     English Language learners as well as students with special needs are often excluded from classroom activities and some of the rights contained therein.  These practices are fought with policies across the country yet underfunded schools and untrained professionals still allow them to happen because they are "the way things have always been done". 

      To address these issues, teachers and administrators need to start local by observing and identifying problems in order to devise a plan to help eliminate any exclusion that could be taking place.  Training and professional development will need to be implemented as well.  This phenomenon will not be going away anytime soon, but it will be up to us as professionals to address and begin its elimination in the school system.