Before taking this class I was a very strong believer in family being the most important influence on children's lives. Throughout the class, I really cultivated that belief. I have spent alot of time on the idea that education should beconcentrated on families - when it is too often used as a tool to separate children from their families.
Too often I hear educators making negative comments about families and listing reasons why they cannot better connect to families. Instead, the focus of education needs to be on families. If parents are involved - kids will be successful. This is the way to ensure school reform.
Going forward - my mission will be to educate and include the parents, grandparents, siblings etc. of children in my care. I am going on a basic belief that families love their children and want to be involved - but are, in many cases, left feeling powerless and unneeded when it comes to schooling. I believe parents should be made to feel empowered about their abilities to care for and educate their children - They should be made to feel that they are the most important factor in their children's success (because they are), and children should feel empowered to create partnerships with families rather than feel that they are on their own and solely accountable for childrens lack of success.
I believe that the first step in including families is meeting families where they are - in their homes. A couple of good guides for how to conduct home visits can be found at the following sites:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Guide_to_Home_Visits_44583_7.
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin241.shtml - 46k
Monday, June 15, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Let The Kid Be
A parenting article published in the New York Times entitled "Let The Kid Be" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/magazine/31wwln-lede-t.html?_r=2) was the impetus behind this blog. It listed trends in parenting across the centuries, the most recent being micro-managing kids time between soccer practice, violin lessons and tutors. I considered while reading this article that these parenting trends probably were aligned with educational trends (which one having the strongest influence, I don't know). Still, while parents have been mocro-managing, so have schools. Idle time, for the past century, has been considered something to avoid if we want college educated, successful children.
The Times article names a new parenting trend - one of letting kids be kids at their own pace - a non-chalance style of parenting where parents focus on their ownneeds and allow their children to pursue their interests at their own pace. I see this as a new trend emerging in schools as well. Clearly, the idea of filling every moment of a child's life with rote memorization is going out of style. Anti-micro-management talk is all the rage in educational sectors.
I, for one, am thrilled at this emergent style of raising children. I hate baseball practice and boy scout meetings - and I can finally admit that openly. I love letting my children play freely as children should - and I can admit that too without fear of negative feedback or judgement.
I hope this article is correct - because in a moment I am going to sit in the backyard with a glass of wine and a book while my children wrestle in the grass - and I wont have the pinge of guilt that they are maybe missing out on some important structured activity.
This article epitomizes why I hate baseball practice and cub scout meetings:
http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=484
The Times article names a new parenting trend - one of letting kids be kids at their own pace - a non-chalance style of parenting where parents focus on their ownneeds and allow their children to pursue their interests at their own pace. I see this as a new trend emerging in schools as well. Clearly, the idea of filling every moment of a child's life with rote memorization is going out of style. Anti-micro-management talk is all the rage in educational sectors.
I, for one, am thrilled at this emergent style of raising children. I hate baseball practice and boy scout meetings - and I can finally admit that openly. I love letting my children play freely as children should - and I can admit that too without fear of negative feedback or judgement.
I hope this article is correct - because in a moment I am going to sit in the backyard with a glass of wine and a book while my children wrestle in the grass - and I wont have the pinge of guilt that they are maybe missing out on some important structured activity.
This article epitomizes why I hate baseball practice and cub scout meetings:
http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=484
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Learning through play
The other day I sat and watched for about 45 minutes while my 6 year old son took apart a pen, and then put it back together. His intense interest is what drew me to watch closely as he repeated this action. He sat and looked at all of the pieces closely and reassembled, then disassembled again. He then put the pen together without the spring, and tried to work it like that. It didn't work well, so he put it together with all of the pieces again. Eventually he discovered that by using the tip section of the pen, the spring, and the ink barrel, he could shoot the ink barrel across the room. He excitedly ran to tell his brothers about his discovery, and once they were all armed with pens - a new game began altogether.
All of this time he spent I would call play. In addition, none of the time was "structured play." nobody told him to try to figure out the pen, and nobody tried to lead him to his very awesome final discovery. However, he learned about the working parts of a pen (a simple machine), he learned about springs, and he learned about force applied and movement created. He was highly interested in this activity, and he was rewarded - not by stickers or grades - but by discovery.
Another recent incidence of learning through play involved my 12 year old son. We were at Morton Arboretum (a wonderful place for children http://www.mortonarb.org/) There is a river in the childrens garden with stoneds that children can use to change and block the flow of water. My son was trying to build a dam in front of a waterfall - which caused water to spray into the air like a fountain. He found this to be very exciting, and repeated his experament on another waterfall with the same result. He pointed out what he had done to anyone walking past. again - he learned about properties of water and probably some physics while playing.
So - what does it mean when we say that children learn through play? It means that if they are trusted and allowed to explore and play - they will learn. It can't be avoided. From the outside it may look like a waste of time - ar at times even dangerous - but children are wired to learn, so no matter what their experiences are - they are learning from those experiences.
I wonder how it would be if schools were like children's museums, and children were allowed to play and explore at their own pace. I imagine we would create a much more intelligent, interested, thoughtful group of students.
http://daycare.suite101.com/article.cfm/cognitive_learning_through_play
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/columncc/cc010309.html
http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=591
All of this time he spent I would call play. In addition, none of the time was "structured play." nobody told him to try to figure out the pen, and nobody tried to lead him to his very awesome final discovery. However, he learned about the working parts of a pen (a simple machine), he learned about springs, and he learned about force applied and movement created. He was highly interested in this activity, and he was rewarded - not by stickers or grades - but by discovery.
Another recent incidence of learning through play involved my 12 year old son. We were at Morton Arboretum (a wonderful place for children http://www.mortonarb.org/) There is a river in the childrens garden with stoneds that children can use to change and block the flow of water. My son was trying to build a dam in front of a waterfall - which caused water to spray into the air like a fountain. He found this to be very exciting, and repeated his experament on another waterfall with the same result. He pointed out what he had done to anyone walking past. again - he learned about properties of water and probably some physics while playing.
So - what does it mean when we say that children learn through play? It means that if they are trusted and allowed to explore and play - they will learn. It can't be avoided. From the outside it may look like a waste of time - ar at times even dangerous - but children are wired to learn, so no matter what their experiences are - they are learning from those experiences.
I wonder how it would be if schools were like children's museums, and children were allowed to play and explore at their own pace. I imagine we would create a much more intelligent, interested, thoughtful group of students.
http://daycare.suite101.com/article.cfm/cognitive_learning_through_play
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/columncc/cc010309.html
http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=591
Monday, May 25, 2009
Careful what you say
There is not much I remember about kindergarten. I do not remember my teacher’s name. I do not remember the other children. I do not remember the classroom. I do not remember the activities or lessons of that first year in school. Within all of this haze, I have one very clear memory. It is a memory that seems trivial, and one that I am sure my teacher from that time has no reason to recollect. It is, however, something that has stuck with me for over 30 years.
We were, apparently, learning our addresses in class. Each student had been given a picture of a house, and we were instructed to write our house number by the door, and to color the house on the picture to look like the house that we lived in. I carefully wrote the numbers 1-9-6 next to the door on the picture, and triumphantly brought my paper to my teacher. She looked at the paper discerningly, and told me that I wasn’t yet finished. I was confused, so she told me that I needed to color the picture of the house. My answer to this was simple, “I live in a white house.”
I assume that my teacher had no other activities planned for the next fifteen minutes or so, because she told me to take the picture back to my seat and to “just color the house a different color.” I was dejected and confused, but I did what I was told. I sat, fighting back tears, and colored my house pink. But, in my five year old mind, and to this day, this was not a picture of my house.
As I said before, this memory has never left me. It has, however, been a lesson to me about how not to trivialize children’s ideas and feelings. Children feel deeply, and their ideas are strong – but it is easy, as an adult, to consider this unimportant.
I believe that, in order for children to become successful adults, they need to feel that they are worthy and capable. Self-esteem is more important to success than reading, writing or math. If a child feels they can learn and succeed, then they will. If they are made to feel that they are trivial and without ability – they will have very little chance of learning.
I work with preschool age children. The part of my job I view as being most important is listening to what the children have to say, enjoying their original thoughts and ideas, and praising the effort that they put forth. I do not want to cause any child in my care to hold onto a memory of being told that something they took pride in was not good enough.
http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/2425 - 52k
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/28/magazine/how-to-foster-self-esteem.html - 42k
We were, apparently, learning our addresses in class. Each student had been given a picture of a house, and we were instructed to write our house number by the door, and to color the house on the picture to look like the house that we lived in. I carefully wrote the numbers 1-9-6 next to the door on the picture, and triumphantly brought my paper to my teacher. She looked at the paper discerningly, and told me that I wasn’t yet finished. I was confused, so she told me that I needed to color the picture of the house. My answer to this was simple, “I live in a white house.”
I assume that my teacher had no other activities planned for the next fifteen minutes or so, because she told me to take the picture back to my seat and to “just color the house a different color.” I was dejected and confused, but I did what I was told. I sat, fighting back tears, and colored my house pink. But, in my five year old mind, and to this day, this was not a picture of my house.
As I said before, this memory has never left me. It has, however, been a lesson to me about how not to trivialize children’s ideas and feelings. Children feel deeply, and their ideas are strong – but it is easy, as an adult, to consider this unimportant.
I believe that, in order for children to become successful adults, they need to feel that they are worthy and capable. Self-esteem is more important to success than reading, writing or math. If a child feels they can learn and succeed, then they will. If they are made to feel that they are trivial and without ability – they will have very little chance of learning.
I work with preschool age children. The part of my job I view as being most important is listening to what the children have to say, enjoying their original thoughts and ideas, and praising the effort that they put forth. I do not want to cause any child in my care to hold onto a memory of being told that something they took pride in was not good enough.
http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/2425 - 52k
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/28/magazine/how-to-foster-self-esteem.html - 42k
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The problem with standardized tests
No matter what the purpose of the standardized test, the result seems to be teaching in a way that is unnatural and not condusive to the way that children learn. The website fairtest.org explains why this happens. The pressure to do well on standardized tests academizes childhood, from a very young age. As a result, the method that young children use to learn, play, is removed from their lives. Our attempt to ensure that children get the best score they can get is stealing their childhood.
I think that most teachers and parents who trust themselves and their children know whether or not the children are learning even without the standardized tests. why can't we trust the experts on children to say what the children are learning and to recognize when their are problems.
I guess everyone wants documentation, not just the assurance of a parent or teacher. One way of doing this is through portfolios. The website found at http://www.pgcps.org/~elc/portfolio.html explains how to begin using portfolios for assessment. By collecting samples of similar types of work throughout the school year, it is easy to demonstrate by comparison what skills have improved in individual children.
I think that most teachers and parents who trust themselves and their children know whether or not the children are learning even without the standardized tests. why can't we trust the experts on children to say what the children are learning and to recognize when their are problems.
I guess everyone wants documentation, not just the assurance of a parent or teacher. One way of doing this is through portfolios. The website found at http://www.pgcps.org/~elc/portfolio.html explains how to begin using portfolios for assessment. By collecting samples of similar types of work throughout the school year, it is easy to demonstrate by comparison what skills have improved in individual children.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Morals as a part of schooling
An article found at (http://www.freeinquiry.com/teaching-morals.html), entitled TEACHING MORALS AND VALUES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A HUMANIST PERSPECTIVE, discusses why morals should be taught in the public schools. While the article blatently states that teaching morals and religion are two different things, and that moral education is a matter of humanism, it still made me wonder how comfortable I would feel leaving the moral education of my children up to teachers whom I do not know personally, and whose values may be very different from my own.
I think that it is a commonly agreed upon lesson that it is "not o.k." for one person to hurt another person. In the preschool where I work, we tell the kids that it is not O.K. to hit, kick, bite or use hurtful words with the other children. Still, I also know that some of the teachers at my school "whoop" their own children as a form of discipline. While this is culturally acceptable for them, I wonder how much validity there is when one of those same teachers tells a child that it is not O.K. to hurt another child.
My point is, I think that adding moral education into schooling might be a trickier issue than it seems to be on the surface. We live in a society where different cultural and ethical practices are accepted. We live in a society where we are expected to be accepting of the practices of other cultures. But I don't think that that should extend to teaching children. I think that teaching of morals should still be the responsibility and right of the family. I can't quite wrap my mind around the idea of allowing the schools to decide what value systems should be taught to my children.
I have four sons. One thing that I know that I want them to be in adulthood is responsible fathers and husbands. This is a value that I make a conscious effort to instill into them. We live in a society where fatherhood and husbandhood are not always seen as priorities. We also live in a society where views on marriage differ widely. my views may not be the sme as the views of another. Is it O.K. to divorce when a couple no longer gets along? Is it O.K. for unwed couples to live together and have children? Is it O.K. to have same sex marriages? Is it O.K. for same sex couples to raise children? Is it O.K. to commit adultry? Is it O,K. for fathers to leave the financial and emotional burden of children to the mothers alone? Is it O.K. for women to decide to have children without the fathers consent? The questions, and combinations of answers to those questions go on and on. The biggest question for me, though, is: "Is it O.K. for school teachers to instill their opinions on this matter into my children?"
I realize that proponents of moral education in public schools are assuming a universal moral code that all humans should follow, but I don't think that all humans are yet to agree on what that moral code is or should be. We are yet to come to a consensus in our country, and are very far from coming to a consensus internationally. Until such a consensus exists, I feel that moral education does not have a place in public schools.
The website An Overview of Moral Development and Moral Education, located at (www.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overview.html) discusses an assumed universal moral code that they say should be taught in school. I still contend that no universal moral code currently exists.
I think that it is a commonly agreed upon lesson that it is "not o.k." for one person to hurt another person. In the preschool where I work, we tell the kids that it is not O.K. to hit, kick, bite or use hurtful words with the other children. Still, I also know that some of the teachers at my school "whoop" their own children as a form of discipline. While this is culturally acceptable for them, I wonder how much validity there is when one of those same teachers tells a child that it is not O.K. to hurt another child.
My point is, I think that adding moral education into schooling might be a trickier issue than it seems to be on the surface. We live in a society where different cultural and ethical practices are accepted. We live in a society where we are expected to be accepting of the practices of other cultures. But I don't think that that should extend to teaching children. I think that teaching of morals should still be the responsibility and right of the family. I can't quite wrap my mind around the idea of allowing the schools to decide what value systems should be taught to my children.
I have four sons. One thing that I know that I want them to be in adulthood is responsible fathers and husbands. This is a value that I make a conscious effort to instill into them. We live in a society where fatherhood and husbandhood are not always seen as priorities. We also live in a society where views on marriage differ widely. my views may not be the sme as the views of another. Is it O.K. to divorce when a couple no longer gets along? Is it O.K. for unwed couples to live together and have children? Is it O.K. to have same sex marriages? Is it O.K. for same sex couples to raise children? Is it O.K. to commit adultry? Is it O,K. for fathers to leave the financial and emotional burden of children to the mothers alone? Is it O.K. for women to decide to have children without the fathers consent? The questions, and combinations of answers to those questions go on and on. The biggest question for me, though, is: "Is it O.K. for school teachers to instill their opinions on this matter into my children?"
I realize that proponents of moral education in public schools are assuming a universal moral code that all humans should follow, but I don't think that all humans are yet to agree on what that moral code is or should be. We are yet to come to a consensus in our country, and are very far from coming to a consensus internationally. Until such a consensus exists, I feel that moral education does not have a place in public schools.
The website An Overview of Moral Development and Moral Education, located at (www.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overview.html) discusses an assumed universal moral code that they say should be taught in school. I still contend that no universal moral code currently exists.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Nature Deficit Disorder
I spent the weekend at my brothers house in Iowa City. My nephew James, who is in sixth grade, is very ecited because he will soon participate in outdoor education, an annual event at his school. The students spend the week at a summer camp for kids, and sll of their activities and lessons revolve around nature education. The sixth graders then spend one night in the cabins at the camp. I think that it is so wonderful that my nephews school values nature education, and so sad that our Illinois schools do not. Children in our schools are lucky if they even get recess, especially in sixth grade.
This made me think of a really important book called Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv. In the book, Louv proclaims that between our digital age and fear, we have pulled our children away from the natural world, which will create disasterous and long lasting consequences. We can spend an entire semester teaching kids about the Amazon Rainforest, but without any real connection to nature, it is unlikely that today's students will actually care. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder)
So, what can be done? It's simple. Take kids outside. Let them look under logs and find bugs. Encourage them to pick up worms. Let them get muddy. Let them jump in puddles and play in the rain. Turn off the tvs, computers and ipods. Dig in the dirt. Plant flowers. Let them climb trees. Catch fireflies. Take them to the woods, and let them run, climb, jump and explore. Why are teachers and parents so afraid of these things? If a child falls out of a tree and breaks his arm, isn't that a part of growing up? Is it better never to have climbed a tree at all?
A wonderful blog about helping children develop a bond with nature can be found at http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/tag/nature-defecit-disorder/. The importance of environmental education cannot be stressed enough. The future of our planet and of the human race depends on it.
This made me think of a really important book called Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv. In the book, Louv proclaims that between our digital age and fear, we have pulled our children away from the natural world, which will create disasterous and long lasting consequences. We can spend an entire semester teaching kids about the Amazon Rainforest, but without any real connection to nature, it is unlikely that today's students will actually care. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_deficit_disorder)
So, what can be done? It's simple. Take kids outside. Let them look under logs and find bugs. Encourage them to pick up worms. Let them get muddy. Let them jump in puddles and play in the rain. Turn off the tvs, computers and ipods. Dig in the dirt. Plant flowers. Let them climb trees. Catch fireflies. Take them to the woods, and let them run, climb, jump and explore. Why are teachers and parents so afraid of these things? If a child falls out of a tree and breaks his arm, isn't that a part of growing up? Is it better never to have climbed a tree at all?
A wonderful blog about helping children develop a bond with nature can be found at http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/tag/nature-defecit-disorder/. The importance of environmental education cannot be stressed enough. The future of our planet and of the human race depends on it.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Mandatory Schooling?
I recently took an online mandated reporter training through DCFS (https://www.dcfstraining.org/manrep/index.jsp). Something that really struck me in this training was that DCFS considers "Not providing schooling, school supplies, or proper school clothing" to be neglect. In other words, a child not provided with schooling can be removed from their family. This disturbing idea led me to consider whether or not mandatory schooling is really what is best for all children.
There is a movement in the homeschooling community called unschooling (http://www.unschooling.com/). The contention is that children are more creative, better thinkers, and more intelligent if they receive no formal schooling whatsoever. Children will learn on their own at their own natural pace if they are free to do so. Unschoolers maintain that formal schooling is an unnatural experience that actually shuts down the child's drive to learn.
If you think about babies - they learn without being taught directly. They develop. They roll over, sit up, crawl, walk and talk simply due to exploration of their environment. The unschooling movement is based on the belief that this natural development will continue if it is not interrupted by school. The unschooling family provides their children with a rich environment, interesting experiences and the freedom to explore, question and discover.
One prime example of the unschooled mind is Leonardo Davinci. Commonly known as one of the most intelligent, creative, and intellectually advanced people in history - Davinci spent his childhood exploring the wilderness near his home.
The question is - is allowing children to learn in this natural way a form of neglect? Is direct instruction a necessary component of success in life? Are unschooled children being denied the key to intelligence? Or..... are schooled children being denied the freedom to be intelligent?
There is a movement in the homeschooling community called unschooling (http://www.unschooling.com/). The contention is that children are more creative, better thinkers, and more intelligent if they receive no formal schooling whatsoever. Children will learn on their own at their own natural pace if they are free to do so. Unschoolers maintain that formal schooling is an unnatural experience that actually shuts down the child's drive to learn.
If you think about babies - they learn without being taught directly. They develop. They roll over, sit up, crawl, walk and talk simply due to exploration of their environment. The unschooling movement is based on the belief that this natural development will continue if it is not interrupted by school. The unschooling family provides their children with a rich environment, interesting experiences and the freedom to explore, question and discover.
One prime example of the unschooled mind is Leonardo Davinci. Commonly known as one of the most intelligent, creative, and intellectually advanced people in history - Davinci spent his childhood exploring the wilderness near his home.
The question is - is allowing children to learn in this natural way a form of neglect? Is direct instruction a necessary component of success in life? Are unschooled children being denied the key to intelligence? Or..... are schooled children being denied the freedom to be intelligent?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
outside of school factors
.JPG)
I am currently on vacation with my family (spring break is awesome). We are spending the week at starved rock state park in utica IL. http://www.starvedrocklodge.com/. So far, My three year old son, Marko, found a frog, which he tortured, but found very interesting. My six year old son, Milan, saw a great horned owl, and saw a few canyons, met some people, saw one piece of a raccoon tail, and saw a few cabins (his own words). My 11 year old son, Elijah, has seen an owl, a frog, a lot of canyons including a beautiful one called fox canyon. He has seen alot of water and had a lot of fun with his family, as well as a few trees he'd like to identify. (his own words). In addition, my 16 year old son, Steven, while looking cool and wearing sunglasses, climbed up the side of a sandstone formation to walk up to and feel a waterfall.
My question is, could my four sons have experienced these things if the proposed mandatory preschool and longer school days as well as school years had taken effect. I say "no". While we didn't go over phonics, sight words or basic math concepts on our trip - my children experieced and learned things they never could have learned outside of school.
A few weeks ago, in early spring, my kindergarten age son was allowed to play out side at school. However, the children had to stay on the blacktop, and were not allowed to touch the snow. I found this appaling. No wonder American citizens are so disconnected with nature.
Extended school days and school years mean that children spend more time in an institution - away from the natural world.
Granted, not all children have the same experiences that my children have. Still, I contend that children have a right to be exposed to their own families and their own families values.
The american school system is failing. So, what would be the purpose of forcing children to spend additional time in a failing system? Especially when there is so much to be learned outside of the classroom?
Today - I hiked for an hour, just so that I could stand behind a waterfall. I saw a wild turkey, a great blue heron, a great horned owl and a spring peeper. My son carried a worm in his hand for 45 minutes. My four sons climbed into a canyon to see a waterfall, hid in a cave, played in a canyon, and saw an owl in the middle of the day. What classroom can give us that? How can schools and government claim that they have more to offer?
I am currently looking out the window of my cabin. I see a fence, lights, grass, and an expanse of stars. Behind me, my two youngest sons are playing balloon volleyball. The world is at peace. I defy anyone to try and take this away from me. Schools may have some great experiences for my children - but I have something better. I would not be able to allow the schools to try my familuy, and the experiences of my family away from me.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Out-Of-School-Factors
Reading the article "Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success" by David C Berliner (http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential), made me consider more closely the many factors that cause children to do poorly in school, as well as the implications as to the lack of validity of No Child Left Behind when we consider these factors. The National Education Association promotes the ideas of Berliner on their website as well (http://www.nea.org/home/ns/31005.htm).
What Berliner contends in this article is that there are many factors in children's lives that impact their ability to perform well in schools, and many of these factors are beyond the control of the schools. Additionally, many of these factors are government controlled, and are aimed directly at low income families - furthering the achievement gap between low and high income students.
One of these is toxic waste. The five largest landfills in the country are all situated around low-income neighborhoods - raising the exposure of these children to toxins in the environment. This in turn, increases the rate of sickness among these children, which causes them to miss more days of school. Children from middle and upper class communities do not need to contend with this factor in their lives. Why is it that families without money or political power are forced to live in an unhealthy environment, while the haves are kept safe from pollutants?
The same is true of mercury and lead in the environment, as well as pesticides and smog. Children from low income families are not protected from environmental waste that the money making industries create - forcing poorer performance in school. It is not industry or government that get blamed for these unthinkable conditions for children, but the schools for their supposed lack of abiity to teach and raise test scores.
the government is holding schools accountable for conditions that the government themselves created.
The problem becomes compounded due to a lack of quality health insurance and health care for low income families. Not only are the children more prone to sickness due to their environment, they receive mediocre health care - if any health care - so they stay sick longer and are increasingly affected by illness. Still, besides talking about universal healthcare in The United States, nothing is done. Families that cannot afford to move away from landfills cannot likely afford co-pays or doctor's fees every time their children get sick.
A government that claims to be doing what is necessary to improve education needs to address all of the factors that affect student performance, not simply looking at the scores of some test.
What Berliner contends in this article is that there are many factors in children's lives that impact their ability to perform well in schools, and many of these factors are beyond the control of the schools. Additionally, many of these factors are government controlled, and are aimed directly at low income families - furthering the achievement gap between low and high income students.
One of these is toxic waste. The five largest landfills in the country are all situated around low-income neighborhoods - raising the exposure of these children to toxins in the environment. This in turn, increases the rate of sickness among these children, which causes them to miss more days of school. Children from middle and upper class communities do not need to contend with this factor in their lives. Why is it that families without money or political power are forced to live in an unhealthy environment, while the haves are kept safe from pollutants?
The same is true of mercury and lead in the environment, as well as pesticides and smog. Children from low income families are not protected from environmental waste that the money making industries create - forcing poorer performance in school. It is not industry or government that get blamed for these unthinkable conditions for children, but the schools for their supposed lack of abiity to teach and raise test scores.
the government is holding schools accountable for conditions that the government themselves created.
The problem becomes compounded due to a lack of quality health insurance and health care for low income families. Not only are the children more prone to sickness due to their environment, they receive mediocre health care - if any health care - so they stay sick longer and are increasingly affected by illness. Still, besides talking about universal healthcare in The United States, nothing is done. Families that cannot afford to move away from landfills cannot likely afford co-pays or doctor's fees every time their children get sick.
A government that claims to be doing what is necessary to improve education needs to address all of the factors that affect student performance, not simply looking at the scores of some test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)