Arthur Levine wrote an article about technology in higher education. He focuses on explaining how if you use either method of learning. Whether that be online learning or in-person learning, that we need to focus more on the outcome of the learning process. With online learning, students have a lot of areas to make their own learning path. Whereas in-person learning focuses on the routine/schedule. He says that we need to focus more on the outcome of learning rather than the actual teaching. In his document, he states, “As a consequence, higher education must in the years ahead move away from its emphasis on teaching to learning, from its focus on common processes to common outcomes” (Fraser 349).
I think that Levine would see online learning for K-12 students as a way to embody this idea of focusing on the outcome rather than the teaching. I believe that Levine would want to implement a structure that allows students to have a little more freedom so that they can focus more on the learning process. Although he wants to focus more on the learning and less on the structure, I think he would implement a routine that is less extensive than the traditional seven-hour learning day. Many institutions and schools have already made online schooling options available, the urban book states, “Many forms of online home-based education have emerged in recent years” (Urban 360). Personally, when it comes to online learning I think that it can be effective based on the person that is using it. I think for some people who are good with time management, that is independent, as well as interested in learning it is a great resource for them. For others who may struggle with school or being able to do their work, I think online learning may prove to be a challenge. Really I think that online learning depends on the student.
0 Comments
During the time of the 1980s and 1990s, many education reforms were starting to be formed and take action. There were two documents released that show two different perspectives about the reforms during this time period. A Nation At Risk explains how education was declining during this period of time. We saw this through test scores that the excellence committee selected. They said that because of the decline are nation is falling behind in comparison to other countries, such as Japan. Since there was a decline the government thinks that they should take action through the effort of reforms. In contrast, Choosing Equality states that “This essay has, therefore, a threefold purpose: to understand where the current thrust for school change is leading, to examine alternative frameworks and approaches for restructuring our schools, and to consider what constituencies can be set in motion so that reform enlarges the democratic promise of education” (Fraser 311). Choosing Equality wanted to use a different approach to change in schools that does not use reform.
In terms of a critique, I would have to take the perspective of Choosing Equality looking at A Nation At Risk. When looking at A Nation At Risk A see the long list of bullet points that prove how our kids are failing. Even though they have all these points the only reason that they are lower is that more students that took those tests were low-income. The urban book states, “Furthermore, declines in test scores that A Nation at Risk did use, like SAT scores taken by high schoolers hoping to attend college, resulted not from actual slippage but simply from the fact that far more students from low-income and minority backgrounds were taking the SAT in the 1970s than had taken it in the 1950s” (Urban 323). The other major point addressed in A Nation At Risk is that they want to fix these issues with reform when we should first try other methods. Rather than using reforms, we should try to make sure that we help the students who are low-income taking these tests. President Lyndon Johnson was most greatly known for his work with education during his presidency. Like some presidents and figures before him, he saw education as a way to improve the nation. He mainly saw education as a way to improve our economy. If we have citizens who have a good education, they will be able to go out and get better jobs and ultimately help improve the economic state of our country. Johnson said as he signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Bill, “As the son of a tenant farmer, I know that education is the only valid passport from poverty” (Fraser 284). Johnson really saw education as a bridge between poverty and success. Being able to have a full education helps one better their life and be able to rise above poverty.
I would have to agree with Johnson on this idea. If someone comes from a background where poverty is a big issue they can change that. Most of the time they are not going to be able to change their situation by just finding a job or winning the lottery. If they have a good education they are going to be able to succeed because they have the knowledge to do so. The way he helped improve the economy and education was by creating bills and acts that would help. He created the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Job Corps, Head Start, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. All of these acts were to help improve the economy and education which was the ultimate goal. The Urban text says, “Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty had lofty goals” (Urban 297). Even though his goals were high he improved life for many a reached the goals that he had set. He improved the economy and education for good reason which is why I agree with why he decided to help improve these aspects of the nation. Segregation in schools was prevelent for a long time before the Brown v. Board of Education case. This case changed the dynamics of schooling for African Americans after the case finished. The main reason why the outcome of the course came out to be how it was, was because segregation in the schools affected the educational opportunities they had and affected them later in life. An excerpt from the Brown v. Board of Education case, says, “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education” (Fraser 252). Education is what every person needs to be an American citizen and a successful person. The other reason for voting the way they did on the Brown case was because segregating the children in school has an effect on their mentality about racism. The Brown case excerpt also says, “Segregation with the sanction of the law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of the negro child and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system” (Fraser 252).
Overall the Brown case changed schooling for African American children because of these reasons that lead to the outcome of Brown. After Brown schools were becoming integrated throughout the nation. Many by using a small group of African American students. In the Urban text, it states, “the South experienced only ‘token’ integration, with small numbers of carefully chosen black students attending white schools” (Urban 292). It definitely was not easy to do, but the Brown case opened up these possibilities for African American students to be able to attend regular school. Herbert Kohl wrote the document Thirty-Six Children. This essay describes his first-day teaching. Kohl had a hard time at first trying to work with the students, teaching them the curriculum, and make them follow his instructions. What Kohl learned when teaching in this classroom is that teachers must observe their students and be able to be a member of the classroom. By observing the children the teacher is able to make greater connections with the students and make a better overall school experience for the students. He says, “Observing children at play and mischief is an invaluable source of knowledge about them-about leaders and groups, fear, courage, warmth, isolation” (Fraser 233).
I believe that Kohl’s document embodies the progressive movement of the next generation. In the past progressive education was focused on the child. Not only was it focused on the child but it gave the child more experiences. Although Kohl’s essay explains a more traditional education where they learn more out of books and not fully with other experiences I believe it is still considered progressive because of the focus on the child. With this education, the teacher is really able to focus on the kids and better understand them. I think this is very critical in this time period because of the mixing of ethnicities in schools. After the Brown v. Board of Education case schools began to change. In the Urban book, it says, “The result was a national metanarrative that celebrated diversity” (Urban 271). Overall I think that Kohl’s view of education can be looked at as progressive because of the focus on observing children, which is important in this era with the integration of schools. Margaret Haley, Ella Flagg Young, Grace Strachan, and Cora Bigelow were all powerful women progressive figures. They all wanted roughly the same thing which was to give more power to the teachers, give men and women equal pay, as well as give teachers a voice. I think that if these women were to have a conversation with one another it would go well. All of them are striving for the same goals with some variation within their ideas. They would agree with each other about the goals that they have set for themselves and for all teachers.
If we want to look more into the content that these women would talk about it would probably fall along the lines that teachers are not getting enough respect for the job that they are doing. They would talk about the unions that were trying to help the cause for teachers. In the Urban textbook, it states, “In order to defend their occupational traditions and their salaries, teachers began to organize themselves into teacher associations” (Urban 211). I think that they would talk about these concepts, they would agree on most, but not on all of them. They had very similar ideas but some of their ideas were a little different than others. For example, Ella Flagg Young emphasized the importance of organization. She says, “There should be organized, throughout every system, school councils whose membership in the aggregate should include every teacher and principal” (Fraser 186). Many of these other women did not have this much of an emphasis on organization. Overall I think that this conversation would be very interesting to listen to. The women would mostly agree with a little bit of disagreement since they were all working toward most of the same goals with some difference in those ideas. Over the course of American history, there was a lot of debate and issues with the Native Americans. The Americans thought, as with most other groups of people, that they needed to educate the Indians so that they could fit in with the American culture. They did this with education for the Indians starting very close to the beginning of the colonies. In the 1900s education for the Indians changed and began to become stronger. They first started with Indian day schools, then on-reservation boarding schools, as well as off-reservation boarding schools. In what is most commonly known as the Meriam Report, Lewis Meriam helps us get a better perspective on how we need to educate these people. At this time off-reservation boarding schools were the most common option but they were in horrible conditions. He says, “The chief explanation of the deficiency in this work lies in the fact that the government has not appropriated enough funds” (Fraser 149). The students were completely stripped away from their Indian roots and the schools were not getting enough money to run them properly. This lead to the view that day schools or on-reservation schools were better for the students. Meriam talks about how we cannot take away the children from their families or culture. It is just wrong to completely strip them away from that despite wanting to make the Indians more American. Many saw the goal as, “Kill the Indian in him and save the man” (Urban 146).
All of this information leads me to think that if I was a teacher at this time I would want to help the students know where they come from while still trying to teach American ideas. Meriam saw that taking children completely away from their culture was wrong and I would agree with this. I believe that I would want the students to learn of their past, you cannot just learn of what you are to become because you will always wonder what you were. If students knew about their Indian culture I think that it would be beneficial in helping them move on from some of their Indian traditions and help them become American. If kids get to learn about American culture and their past as Americans than why should Indian students not be able to learn about the past in which they came from. In 1959 James Bryant Conant wrote “The American High School Today”. In this text, Conant gives a good explanation of what the public thinks about public high schools during this period. During this time high schools were beginning to become “comprehensive”, meaning that the school is for everyone. Conant describes one of the key purposes of comprehensive high schools as, “to provide a general education for all future citizens”(Fraser 138). It does not just target one group of students, for example, college-bound or non-college-bound students. While it accommodates all students many see the school system as chaotic. Many citizens say that they would leave the system at it is, despite the chaotic system it is, just simply because it works. Even though most schools are comprehensive and provide an education for all students there were still some other types of schools during this period.
For decades before Conant’s report was written, many educators and leaders were having the debate of what school system would be the best. They debated about vocational schools which are schools that prepared students for certain professions, as well as specialized schools, meaning that they were for students that were more academically able or were going to be college-bound. Many educators debated this, such as the Committee of Ten, John Dewey, and G. Stanley Hall. In the end, nobody really truly won this debate, but I think the group that could be considered the winners would have to be the National Education Association and their “Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education”. In this report the say how there needs to be many different elements that go into education. If there are many different elements that create not only uniformity but as well as diversity than the system will be fit for all. The report is described to “create a ‘both-and’ institution that would have both unitive and differentiative function” (Urban 206). In Conant’s report, we can see how the comprehensive school system closely resembles the educational system that was being set up in the “Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education”. Showing that the Nation Education Association came the closest to “winning” in the end. During the time period that Frederick Douglass was alive, it was very controversial to teach a slave how to read and write. Many taught their slaves to read and write because it would help them with certain jobs on their plantation or at work, despite the fact that in some states it was illegal to teach a slave to read and write. On the other hand, many saw reading and writing as a bad thing, people believed that if a slave could learn to read and write that would help them gain their freedom and get away from slavery. Fredrick learned this from a young age, so he learned to read and write so that he could one day run away.
Frederick was taught by his mistress some of his ABCs and reading but after some time his master found out and ended the activity. He then began to learn some reading and letters from the little white boys when he went running errands. He would give them some snacks to eat while they taught him as a sort of payment. Once he began to learn to read then he wanted to learn how to write. His goal was to learn to write before he would run away. While he went to the shipyard occasionally he would see the men writing letters on the boxes and then learned how to write select letters from there, he also learned from some of the white boys who could write. He said, “when I met with any boy who knew I could write, I would tell him I could write as well as he” (Fraser 82). Eventually, he learned how to read and write well and was able to escape from slavery. He then went on to begin a teaching career, “later conducted a clandestine Sunday school in order ‘to exercise my gifts and to impart to my brother-slaves the little knowledge I possessed’” (Urban 120). Overall Frederick Douglass valued literacy because it helped him escape from slavery and better his life. During the nineteenth century, schooling was continuing to grow and beginning to move west. As the schools were growing a textbook came out to help teach children what they needed to learn in school. William Holmes McGuffey wrote the McGuffey Readers to begin to help teach children basic lessons and skills. There were six grade level textbooks to help teach the students. Each book consisted of many reading, writing, and vocal lessons as well as moral lessons and american history.
Many people may think that this is an ideal textbook for the time because it not only consisted of everything a young person may need to learn but it also embodied an american education. In the 1879 addition some of the aspects that the students needed to learn in this textbook were: Articulation, Vocals, and Elocution and Reading. These parts of the textbook were essential to learning. One of the main reasons why a child may go to school is so that they can learn to read and write. The McGuffey Readers consist of this element showing that they have the essential knowledge that students need. It also had elements that helped teach an American education. In the 1879 edition of the readers it consisted of the speech before the Virginia convention and a section dedicated to the founding fathers. These parts elaborated on how these people and events have played a crucial role in our history. In the 1879 reader it states, “that it is to them that the world is now indebted for the more just and definite views now prevail” this quote clearly emphasizes the importance of american history, specifically the founding fathers, that we must learn (Fraser 66). I think that the McGuffey Readers are an ideal textbook for this time period except for the fact that they consisted heavily of religious aspects. This textbook is ideal in the fact that it consists of the essential reading and writing elements as well as moral lessons and American history. The only place where I see a downfall of this textbook would be the religious aspect. Webster “has a strong desire to teach and spread Protestant Christianity” (Urban 85). During this time many different religious views are beginning to surface as well as the common school movement. With the common schools they wanted to make sure that they did not discriminate against any person or group of people within schooling and with this large religious aspect of the textbook it discriminates against some of these people and groups, and essentially contradicts the common school movement. |
AuthorMy name is Ellie de Buhr and I am a Bradley University student who is majoring in Art Education. Archives
November 2020
Categories |