The letter posted here was published in the Rye Record on April 20th. The writer has asked for questions to be answered in a public forum by the School Board.
EDU 101 offers this space for other issues to be discussed and answered by the board. Any requests for an Umbrella Topic can be sent to ryeedu101@yahoo.com .
· What’s the rush? Which gym are we talking about? The one there or a new one?
· Have all other solutions been explored? Milton’s multi-purpose room was intended to function for some gym programs, but in actuality is a uni-purpose room – the cafeteria. Couldn’t a creative physical education program and dynamic administration techniques solve the space dilemma just as well as a new building?
· What’s the cost? This has been presented as a one-off expense, but it’s not. What’s the maintenance? When plant square footage increases, are we required by law to increase staff hours, salaries, etc.? How much green space does Milton lose - space that can never be reclaimed again? What’s the long-term cost when it comes to energy? With White Plains constructing a “Green” elementary school –the energy costs will pay for themselves in a decade – why is Rye proceeding apace with an outmoded design?
· Where’s the accountability? The last construction project at Milton ran into several hundreds of thousands of dollars in change orders. If this project proceeds, it will be the same firm, same supervision on site. Would anyone do home reconstruction this way? Isn’t it prudent to put aside money for a rainy day?
· What does the community think, particularly those who live on Hewlett Ave.? Most puzzling is to hear trustees imply that there must be parity when it comes to facilities for all three elementary schools. Now there’s a slippery slope! From who or where did that directive come? Is it law? If not, why is this policy without community discussion?
· Then there are the questions raised by listening to discussions about moving money from one budget line to another. If our money is fungible, why not put it where our values lie? What do we value? Educational initiatives, small classrooms, emergency funds, or more buildings? What kind of message does that send our children?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Tutoring
This thread is intended for a discussion on tutoring in Rye City School District. What are your thoughts on tutoring?
Saturday, April 21, 2007
New Budget
On Tuesday night the Board approved a new budget. Does the budget reflect our values as a community? Does it reflect the notion of Schools that matter? We invite your stories, information, below.
Monday, April 16, 2007
About this blog
EDU 101 had its first meeting on March 24th, 2007. A new program EDU 101, is intended to be a community forum about education topics. Dr. Steve Cohen, the Rye City School District's new Asst. Superintendent, spoke about the historical perspective of separating children in different educational tracks and how that affects children's self-esteem and ability to achieve in school. His presentation can be read in three seperate posts below - the final part of his presentation is first. The roundtable discussion was interesting and very lively and was attended by George Latimer, a member of the EDU 101 planning board; Bob Zahm, a member of the Board of Education; Dr. Ed Shine, Superintendent of Schools, as well as members of the Rye community.
We look forward to your comments on this and other topics that will be posted here.
We look forward to your comments on this and other topics that will be posted here.
Schools that Matter: The future
Schools that Matter: The Future
· Significantly, this notion of sound schooling dovetails with just the kind of intellectual engagement and nimbleness that national leaders say is most crucial for our children in a world in which innovation will be the key to a secure future, not physical labor or professional licensing.
· All physical labor and technical training is becoming cheaper and cheaper to find as Asians and South Americans and Africans enter the global labor market in immense numbers.
· What will distinguish people in the world of work is the extent to which they will be able to contribute and develop exciting ideas for products and services that other people around the world will want to buy.
· Teaching kids how to discover and develop whatever innate abilities they may have to the fullest, rather than molding them prematurely at an early age for work that is not part of the American culture or character, is what schools that matter will be all about. And the key to making these kinds of schools excellent will be gathering together a faculty that is itself intellectually and emotionally nimble, serving a community that understands and supports schooling suited to a world that is more dynamic and open-ended than the black and white world of the Cold-War in which our current educational system developed. The acquisition of critical skills needs to occur within this larger context to be meaningful and successful.
· Significantly, this notion of sound schooling dovetails with just the kind of intellectual engagement and nimbleness that national leaders say is most crucial for our children in a world in which innovation will be the key to a secure future, not physical labor or professional licensing.
· All physical labor and technical training is becoming cheaper and cheaper to find as Asians and South Americans and Africans enter the global labor market in immense numbers.
· What will distinguish people in the world of work is the extent to which they will be able to contribute and develop exciting ideas for products and services that other people around the world will want to buy.
· Teaching kids how to discover and develop whatever innate abilities they may have to the fullest, rather than molding them prematurely at an early age for work that is not part of the American culture or character, is what schools that matter will be all about. And the key to making these kinds of schools excellent will be gathering together a faculty that is itself intellectually and emotionally nimble, serving a community that understands and supports schooling suited to a world that is more dynamic and open-ended than the black and white world of the Cold-War in which our current educational system developed. The acquisition of critical skills needs to occur within this larger context to be meaningful and successful.
Schools that Matter: Now
NOW:
· In short, 50 years ago, statistically average kids were just that—actually average. And since for most White kids in this part of the country being average did not spell failure as adults, few White people scrutinized the kinds of schools they sent their kids to.
· But when on Sept 25th, 1957 President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock Arkansas to integrate its schools, the idea that the quality of kids’ education is affected by the kinds of expectations the adult world has of them came center stage—and when a week or so later, on October 4, the Soviet Union sent Sputnik into orbit around the earth, and indirectly created the first modern “crisis” American education, the question of “what kinds of schools matter” took on special meaning. Now we needed schools that would not only train kids to succeed in an increasingly technical world but also would not deny kids a quality education because of what teachers believed minority or underclass children were capable of learning.
· By the 1980s, the question of “what kinds of schools matter” took on still greater importance as the tracking system began to hurt kids from families who had high expectations for their kids’ futures. It is this condition that has led to more general concern and interest in examining the effects of the pedagogical environment on a child’s engagement in schools. Parents’ attitudes, teachers’ attitudes, BOE attitudes, it turns out, can hamper learning among children with special needs or among girls (or boys), among gay children. Nasty, or even just incorrect, views about children’s abilities and development affect how and whether children learn.
· Today we ask “What kinds of schools matter?” because we are now aware that kids lose interest in school when they come to see themselves as “non-students” and they come to see themselves as “non-students” in part when teachers and educational programs treat them as if they are “non-students”. If most people believe IQ scores and math standardized test scores and ERB scores tell us whether Johnny or Sally have any talent, and if Johnny and Sally don’t score very well on these tests, we should not be surprised if Johnny and Sally look elsewhere for engagement than their local school. If Johnny and Sally’s teachers relate to them unconsciously as if they are merely average, they are that much more likely to achieve as average students. Parents who beat their children raise children, in turn, who are likely to beat their own kids. Children of racists are more likely to become racists themselves as adults. Children of Republicans tend to become Republicans more than Democrats. (And visa versa.) Children who grow up in nurturing, challenging, supportive environments tend to thrive more than children who do not. One may say this truth is obvious—and so it is. But it is also ignored over and over again in the conduct of child-rearing and education.
· This is where “differentiated instruction,” portfolios and other pedagogical innovations come into the story of “what kinds of schools matter.” For although we all know that kids differ with regard to natural talents and abilities, we do not know what any particular child is capable of achieving, except within very broad limits. If this is the case, then it seems we would want to create schools that create neutral environments with respect to student ability at the same time as we create environments rich in opportunity, teacher engagement with students and supportive communities. We should design schools that accept that kids will differ with respect to all sorts of talents and abilities without pre-determining the results of every child’s path of discovery of his or her talents and abilities.
· All children will, at some point in their lives, discover that they are good at certain things and not so good at others. Schooling should be about creating the richest environment possible for children to make these discoveries about themselves. For this education to occur, the adult world must be very careful not to pre-determine the results. Differentiating instruction and affording all students real opportunities to develop projects of their own choosing are, to me, the best ways available to provide adult assistance and disciplined guidance to children without sending subtle messages about innate abilities.
· So schools that matter are schools that get out of the business of molding students according to some half-articulated sense of what individual kids are capable of becoming and become schools in which teachers and programs provide skills and avenues of discovery for all kids and then get out of the way and let kids make judgments about what they can and cannot do.
· In short, 50 years ago, statistically average kids were just that—actually average. And since for most White kids in this part of the country being average did not spell failure as adults, few White people scrutinized the kinds of schools they sent their kids to.
· But when on Sept 25th, 1957 President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock Arkansas to integrate its schools, the idea that the quality of kids’ education is affected by the kinds of expectations the adult world has of them came center stage—and when a week or so later, on October 4, the Soviet Union sent Sputnik into orbit around the earth, and indirectly created the first modern “crisis” American education, the question of “what kinds of schools matter” took on special meaning. Now we needed schools that would not only train kids to succeed in an increasingly technical world but also would not deny kids a quality education because of what teachers believed minority or underclass children were capable of learning.
· By the 1980s, the question of “what kinds of schools matter” took on still greater importance as the tracking system began to hurt kids from families who had high expectations for their kids’ futures. It is this condition that has led to more general concern and interest in examining the effects of the pedagogical environment on a child’s engagement in schools. Parents’ attitudes, teachers’ attitudes, BOE attitudes, it turns out, can hamper learning among children with special needs or among girls (or boys), among gay children. Nasty, or even just incorrect, views about children’s abilities and development affect how and whether children learn.
· Today we ask “What kinds of schools matter?” because we are now aware that kids lose interest in school when they come to see themselves as “non-students” and they come to see themselves as “non-students” in part when teachers and educational programs treat them as if they are “non-students”. If most people believe IQ scores and math standardized test scores and ERB scores tell us whether Johnny or Sally have any talent, and if Johnny and Sally don’t score very well on these tests, we should not be surprised if Johnny and Sally look elsewhere for engagement than their local school. If Johnny and Sally’s teachers relate to them unconsciously as if they are merely average, they are that much more likely to achieve as average students. Parents who beat their children raise children, in turn, who are likely to beat their own kids. Children of racists are more likely to become racists themselves as adults. Children of Republicans tend to become Republicans more than Democrats. (And visa versa.) Children who grow up in nurturing, challenging, supportive environments tend to thrive more than children who do not. One may say this truth is obvious—and so it is. But it is also ignored over and over again in the conduct of child-rearing and education.
· This is where “differentiated instruction,” portfolios and other pedagogical innovations come into the story of “what kinds of schools matter.” For although we all know that kids differ with regard to natural talents and abilities, we do not know what any particular child is capable of achieving, except within very broad limits. If this is the case, then it seems we would want to create schools that create neutral environments with respect to student ability at the same time as we create environments rich in opportunity, teacher engagement with students and supportive communities. We should design schools that accept that kids will differ with respect to all sorts of talents and abilities without pre-determining the results of every child’s path of discovery of his or her talents and abilities.
· All children will, at some point in their lives, discover that they are good at certain things and not so good at others. Schooling should be about creating the richest environment possible for children to make these discoveries about themselves. For this education to occur, the adult world must be very careful not to pre-determine the results. Differentiating instruction and affording all students real opportunities to develop projects of their own choosing are, to me, the best ways available to provide adult assistance and disciplined guidance to children without sending subtle messages about innate abilities.
· So schools that matter are schools that get out of the business of molding students according to some half-articulated sense of what individual kids are capable of becoming and become schools in which teachers and programs provide skills and avenues of discovery for all kids and then get out of the way and let kids make judgments about what they can and cannot do.
What Kind of Schools Matter?
March 24th EDU 101 talk: What Kind of Schools Matter
Schools that matter: Then
“What kind of schools matter?” probably wasn’t a question anyone was interested in 50 years ago. Most young people in the US did not need an academic education to get and keep a job that would offer a middle-class standard of living. Schooling was compulsory, but not so much because an academic background was thought to be essential to enter the middle-class. Schooling was perceived as much as a means of teaching young people personal skills as it was to provide young people with essential intellectual skills.
From WWI on, in fact, insofar as kids went to public school beyond 8th grade, they were grouped according to “ability” as defined by IQ tests. Tests intending to separate kids going to college, then a very small proportion of the population compared to today, from those going into the factory or small business worlds.
These tests, along with SATs after WWII, were accepted, by and large, as legitimate indicators of innate abilities and students were “tracked” in public school accordingly: generally as college bound or technical, although there were often as many as 5 or 7 separate tracks in high school.
It is hard to imagine now that 50 years ago nobody thought much about the psychological effects of tracking on student engagement in learning. Teachers, parents and students accepted the assumption of IQ tests: there is but a small percentage of kids in any generation that has any important talent, while most kids are—and should be – destined to work in factories, family businesses, on farms. Tracking made sense in those days because so many people accepted the claim that tracking captured objective realities like the distribution of innate talent. Few people argued that talent is also shaped by the encouragement or discouragement that children receive as they grow.
But when the Supreme Court held in 1954, in Brown v Board of Education--that social and psychological factors affect learning--it inadvertently supported a more general sociological truth then gaining ascendancy in American society: that expectations people in authority have about subordinates’ abilities translate into real behavior. If authorities say that a child is smart, that child is likely to behave that way because those authorities will nurture, encourage and train such a child to succeed. And succeed could be defined as doing better on the very tests that these same authorities create to separate “smart” and “not-smart” children. This simple discovery—that a teacher’s beliefs about the abilities of his or her students translate into real advantages given to “smart” children, not to mention the effect of convincing certain children that they were in fact smart (or not so)—introduced an implicit challenge to the tracking system based on IQ or other tests of so-called innate abilities.
The belief that there is an identifiable ceiling on innate abilities was challenged in part by the political and social upheavals of the 1950s and 1960s. For example, social scientists argued that the legal as well as social separation of the races had negative psychological effects on black children (and White children) which inhibited the educational process and thus argued that blacks should be educated along with their white peers if equality of education was to become a reality. So, if it is true that teachers’ beliefs about the intellectual abilities of blacks, or immigrants, or of women, or kids who score in the 5th stanine on an IQ test, affect how these teachers actually teach—how they inspire kids, how they speak to kids, whether or not they encourage kids, discipline kids, advise kids and so forth – then it may not be so true that a score on a standardized test is a reliable objective indicator of what that student is actually capable of accomplishing.
This conflict between the underlying assumption of so-called meritocratic education—IQ and standardized testing—and the findings of social psychology about self-fulfilling prophecies lay largely dormant as long as the only children who suffered from the negative effects of teachers’/ parents’/administrators/ low expectations were black or female or poor.
Schools that matter: Then
“What kind of schools matter?” probably wasn’t a question anyone was interested in 50 years ago. Most young people in the US did not need an academic education to get and keep a job that would offer a middle-class standard of living. Schooling was compulsory, but not so much because an academic background was thought to be essential to enter the middle-class. Schooling was perceived as much as a means of teaching young people personal skills as it was to provide young people with essential intellectual skills.
From WWI on, in fact, insofar as kids went to public school beyond 8th grade, they were grouped according to “ability” as defined by IQ tests. Tests intending to separate kids going to college, then a very small proportion of the population compared to today, from those going into the factory or small business worlds.
These tests, along with SATs after WWII, were accepted, by and large, as legitimate indicators of innate abilities and students were “tracked” in public school accordingly: generally as college bound or technical, although there were often as many as 5 or 7 separate tracks in high school.
It is hard to imagine now that 50 years ago nobody thought much about the psychological effects of tracking on student engagement in learning. Teachers, parents and students accepted the assumption of IQ tests: there is but a small percentage of kids in any generation that has any important talent, while most kids are—and should be – destined to work in factories, family businesses, on farms. Tracking made sense in those days because so many people accepted the claim that tracking captured objective realities like the distribution of innate talent. Few people argued that talent is also shaped by the encouragement or discouragement that children receive as they grow.
But when the Supreme Court held in 1954, in Brown v Board of Education--that social and psychological factors affect learning--it inadvertently supported a more general sociological truth then gaining ascendancy in American society: that expectations people in authority have about subordinates’ abilities translate into real behavior. If authorities say that a child is smart, that child is likely to behave that way because those authorities will nurture, encourage and train such a child to succeed. And succeed could be defined as doing better on the very tests that these same authorities create to separate “smart” and “not-smart” children. This simple discovery—that a teacher’s beliefs about the abilities of his or her students translate into real advantages given to “smart” children, not to mention the effect of convincing certain children that they were in fact smart (or not so)—introduced an implicit challenge to the tracking system based on IQ or other tests of so-called innate abilities.
The belief that there is an identifiable ceiling on innate abilities was challenged in part by the political and social upheavals of the 1950s and 1960s. For example, social scientists argued that the legal as well as social separation of the races had negative psychological effects on black children (and White children) which inhibited the educational process and thus argued that blacks should be educated along with their white peers if equality of education was to become a reality. So, if it is true that teachers’ beliefs about the intellectual abilities of blacks, or immigrants, or of women, or kids who score in the 5th stanine on an IQ test, affect how these teachers actually teach—how they inspire kids, how they speak to kids, whether or not they encourage kids, discipline kids, advise kids and so forth – then it may not be so true that a score on a standardized test is a reliable objective indicator of what that student is actually capable of accomplishing.
This conflict between the underlying assumption of so-called meritocratic education—IQ and standardized testing—and the findings of social psychology about self-fulfilling prophecies lay largely dormant as long as the only children who suffered from the negative effects of teachers’/ parents’/administrators/ low expectations were black or female or poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)