Teacher compensation is a serious concern in nearly every part of the country. After I read Zen the Art of Public School Teaching, I became keenly aware of many of the compensation and esteem issues that come with teaching public school. In my view, John Perricone put a spotlight on the issue. His intense need to tell the world about his profound experiences as an educator made me wary of his intentions. His egocentric views on teaching demonstrated to me that the field is female dominated, lacks respect, and is poorly compensated.
Teacher’s Cost of Living Matters More, by Matt Moore and friends primarily focused on the elementary teacher pay. It also focused on the actual pay; the “adjusted cost” as they referred to it. The “adjusted cost” is simply focusing on the spending power of each salary in its respective city. The study is fascinating. Though Nashville, TN didn’t make the list, its unadjusted pay would put it fairly low on the list; however, Nashville’s cost of living is low comparatively. I bet it would have moved fairly high on the “adjusted” list.
The K-12 pay is comparable with community college compensation so I will comment on how the pay has impacted Columbia State Community College. Because the pay is, for most of the faculty at Columbia State, 50 percent less than what we could make in the “real world”, employee turn is high. The nursing and technology departments have an average employee turnover of roughly two years. Let’s take a look at a specific example. The nursing department requires its faculty to hold a MSN. Most folks who have such a degree are worth roughly 80K-100K in the “real world”. These instructors take students who, in many cases, have no work history through a 24 month program and put them out in full-time jobs making about 40K a year. What’s so bad about this? The instructors are making, in some cases, less than the brand new nurses. It is humiliating and frustrating. What happens? The nursing department turns its faculty over every other year. Why is this bad? Students receive poor and inconsistent advising; the nursing department starts getting a bad reputation, and that starts to impact the school’s reputation and its ability to place it graduates.
When teacher pay is low, schools will always struggle to attract the talent it needs to succeed and thrive. Additionally, the current compensation structure does not reward quality instructors for good work. It is strictly pay for time; this, in my view, cannot continue. According to an Internet article, “For states that want more bang for their education buck, a recently released report advises, raising teachers' salaries generally isn't the most cost-effective way of raising student achievement. The authors speculate that the traditional compensation system rewards both high- and low-quality teachers. According to the study, spending money on lowering pupil-teacher ratios in the lower grades, providing widely available prekindergarten programs, and providing teachers with discretionary resources for the classroom are better uses of education dollars, particularly in states with disproportionately high numbers of minority and disadvantaged children. “
Teacher compensation is a tough topic and a challenging one to tackle. In my opinion, pay should be determined, not for length of service, but for good work, measurable student outcomes, student reviews, and supervisory reviews. Take a look at some of the comments of workers in Iowa, a low paying state.
"Many teachers are leaving Iowa to teach where the pay is higher."- "Low pay keeps some potentially (usually smarter) students from even considering teaching..."- "A profession that requires a degree to begin - and requires ongoing education ... to stay in - deserves a higher starting salary!"
Teacher salary nationwide is a serious problem and deserves national attention. If schools want to attract good people, it will have to start paying a wage that's comparable with work in the "real world".
http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues111.shtml
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090816/OPINION03/908160317
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Immigration - FOED 7060
Web Blog #4
“New Civil Rights Movement” in Immigration Protests is an article written to open up the minds of readers that the upheaval surrounding immigration today is because, “this is really a new civil rights movement reborn in this country”. The author, Ms. Kyriakou, continued by adding, “This is not just about the immigrants; it’s about human and civil rights. It’s about all marginalized, under-privileged people in the United States”. Later in the article, Ms. Kyriakou, explained the survey results of 800 residents who gained legal entry into the country. What were the results? These folks were against criminalizing and deporting undocumented workers and building walls and other barriers along the U.S. border. These same folks expressed concern over, what they perceive to be, an anti-immigrant attitude in this country. I can understand the frustration from these folks, but they are only seeing things from their perspective. It is expensive to run schools, provide free health care, etc. Undocumented workers are sending a huge portion of their pay checks back to family in Mexico, they aren’t paying taxes, and they are getting free healthcare. This simply cannot continue. Immigration must be limited and controlled. I am not seeing the similarities between the Civil Right movement and the current situation. If we open the border, how will we pay for everything? How do we keep the country safe?
Here's what a Mexican America thinks. "I write my blog to provide PRO Immigration Reformers an equal voice in the Immigration debate. I view our PRO viewpoint very similar to the Civil Rights Movement.. The Civil Rights marchers protested the wrongful Jim Crow laws.. We protest wrongful Immigration Laws, Detention Centers, Racial Profiling, Hate Crimes, etc.. They advocated education, equal pay, the vote and Human Rights.. We advocate the same.. The Civil Rights protesters were viewed by some as agitators, ANTI American and ANTI White.. The ANTIs demonize PROs using this same rhetoric.. Many Civil Rights protesters were wrongfully imprisoned.. Many undocumented families are wrongfully imprisoned in Detention Centers.. Today, most Americans realize the Civil Rights marchers were heroes and the laws needed to be changed.. More and more Americans are coming to the same conclusion towards the PRO Immigration Reformers."
I can see where she is coming from; however, my position is the same. She is upset, but, in my view, she in not looking at the big picture. She is upset about the treatment of undocumented workers. The reality is, these people did not come to this country legally and do not have the same rights as Americans. We are living in a strange time; the United States is hated by many. The United States has a process for those who want to enter the U.S. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Those who choose to break the rule are subject to detention centers, imprisonment, etc.
The second article, Multiculturalism in School Curriculum by Adam Waxler, was a breath of fresh air. His approach is simple, involves active learning, and encourages students to explore other cultures in a non-threatening way that will, hopefully, lead to meaningful and enlightening discussions. I agree with him that changing school curriculum to accommodate the new views of multiculturalism, does not make sense. Like Mr. Waxler, I think changing the classroom format and assignments is far more meaningful. As he points out, this type of learning is called “active learning” and encourages students to think, analyze, and interpret information. Ultimately, this type of learning should lead to higher test scores as well as well-rounded individuals.
The last article addresses what he perceives to be the problems with American education. First, the American grade system is unclear. He states that there isn’t a single principal in this school that can clearly identify what each grade has in common or what, specifically, each grade should be learning. I do not teach at the K-12 level, but I find this hard to believe. The author’s primary concern is that it is causing a widening gap between privileged and underprivileged. He said it is impossible for an underprivileged child to enter school and catch up academically because the teacher cannot clearly identify where the child should be or what the child is missing. My next door neighbor is a special education teacher in the Williamson County School District, and she said this could not be further from the truth. Each class has a clearly defined curriculum with clear goals and objectives. New students are given exams to assess his or her abilities and the necessary steps are taken to assist the student meet the goals for that grade level. The article continues on about how the school system isn’t incorporating multiculturalism in a meaningful way.
This is the sixth article I’ve read, and I still do not know the objectives of the “Immigrants”. What do they want? What are their goals? If they had it their way, how would we incorporate this in our school system? It’s unlikely our educational system will ever make everyone happy, nor do I feel we should follow the Utilitarian Theory. I very much like Mr. Waxler’s suggestion about changing the activities to incorporate all of the viewpoints rather than changing the curriculum. As I noted in my first blog post about religion and education, all of this multiculturalism is riddled with fear and anger. What is so scary? Why are people so angry? Why is this a non-issue at the college level? I have never, not even once, had a discussion about multiculturalism while at a curriculum committee meeting or with a student. I understand some of the arguments, but it all seems trivial and over the top. Classmates, feel free to enlighten me. In my view, it all boils down to respect. Teach young people how to respect others.
http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2009/01/civil-rights-movement-and-immigration.html
“New Civil Rights Movement” in Immigration Protests is an article written to open up the minds of readers that the upheaval surrounding immigration today is because, “this is really a new civil rights movement reborn in this country”. The author, Ms. Kyriakou, continued by adding, “This is not just about the immigrants; it’s about human and civil rights. It’s about all marginalized, under-privileged people in the United States”. Later in the article, Ms. Kyriakou, explained the survey results of 800 residents who gained legal entry into the country. What were the results? These folks were against criminalizing and deporting undocumented workers and building walls and other barriers along the U.S. border. These same folks expressed concern over, what they perceive to be, an anti-immigrant attitude in this country. I can understand the frustration from these folks, but they are only seeing things from their perspective. It is expensive to run schools, provide free health care, etc. Undocumented workers are sending a huge portion of their pay checks back to family in Mexico, they aren’t paying taxes, and they are getting free healthcare. This simply cannot continue. Immigration must be limited and controlled. I am not seeing the similarities between the Civil Right movement and the current situation. If we open the border, how will we pay for everything? How do we keep the country safe?
Here's what a Mexican America thinks. "I write my blog to provide PRO Immigration Reformers an equal voice in the Immigration debate. I view our PRO viewpoint very similar to the Civil Rights Movement.. The Civil Rights marchers protested the wrongful Jim Crow laws.. We protest wrongful Immigration Laws, Detention Centers, Racial Profiling, Hate Crimes, etc.. They advocated education, equal pay, the vote and Human Rights.. We advocate the same.. The Civil Rights protesters were viewed by some as agitators, ANTI American and ANTI White.. The ANTIs demonize PROs using this same rhetoric.. Many Civil Rights protesters were wrongfully imprisoned.. Many undocumented families are wrongfully imprisoned in Detention Centers.. Today, most Americans realize the Civil Rights marchers were heroes and the laws needed to be changed.. More and more Americans are coming to the same conclusion towards the PRO Immigration Reformers."
I can see where she is coming from; however, my position is the same. She is upset, but, in my view, she in not looking at the big picture. She is upset about the treatment of undocumented workers. The reality is, these people did not come to this country legally and do not have the same rights as Americans. We are living in a strange time; the United States is hated by many. The United States has a process for those who want to enter the U.S. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Those who choose to break the rule are subject to detention centers, imprisonment, etc.
The second article, Multiculturalism in School Curriculum by Adam Waxler, was a breath of fresh air. His approach is simple, involves active learning, and encourages students to explore other cultures in a non-threatening way that will, hopefully, lead to meaningful and enlightening discussions. I agree with him that changing school curriculum to accommodate the new views of multiculturalism, does not make sense. Like Mr. Waxler, I think changing the classroom format and assignments is far more meaningful. As he points out, this type of learning is called “active learning” and encourages students to think, analyze, and interpret information. Ultimately, this type of learning should lead to higher test scores as well as well-rounded individuals.
The last article addresses what he perceives to be the problems with American education. First, the American grade system is unclear. He states that there isn’t a single principal in this school that can clearly identify what each grade has in common or what, specifically, each grade should be learning. I do not teach at the K-12 level, but I find this hard to believe. The author’s primary concern is that it is causing a widening gap between privileged and underprivileged. He said it is impossible for an underprivileged child to enter school and catch up academically because the teacher cannot clearly identify where the child should be or what the child is missing. My next door neighbor is a special education teacher in the Williamson County School District, and she said this could not be further from the truth. Each class has a clearly defined curriculum with clear goals and objectives. New students are given exams to assess his or her abilities and the necessary steps are taken to assist the student meet the goals for that grade level. The article continues on about how the school system isn’t incorporating multiculturalism in a meaningful way.
This is the sixth article I’ve read, and I still do not know the objectives of the “Immigrants”. What do they want? What are their goals? If they had it their way, how would we incorporate this in our school system? It’s unlikely our educational system will ever make everyone happy, nor do I feel we should follow the Utilitarian Theory. I very much like Mr. Waxler’s suggestion about changing the activities to incorporate all of the viewpoints rather than changing the curriculum. As I noted in my first blog post about religion and education, all of this multiculturalism is riddled with fear and anger. What is so scary? Why are people so angry? Why is this a non-issue at the college level? I have never, not even once, had a discussion about multiculturalism while at a curriculum committee meeting or with a student. I understand some of the arguments, but it all seems trivial and over the top. Classmates, feel free to enlighten me. In my view, it all boils down to respect. Teach young people how to respect others.
http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2009/01/civil-rights-movement-and-immigration.html
Friday, September 11, 2009
Multiculturalism
Holly Brew-Multiculturalism
Why Multicuturism is Wrong is an article that challenges the reader to consider the idea that mulitculturialism, as we know it here in the U.S., may be the source of our social problems and only a temporary idea. It appears Europe is one step ahead of the U.S. when it comes to handling its issues with immigrants. The author claims that multiculturalism limits freedom and possibility. He goes on to explain how, in some countries, it legitimizes racism and inequality. He specifically identified the Netherlands. The world multicultural is “systematically used as the opposite to equality”. In the Netherlands, African immigrants clean toilets, and upper middle class Dutch are in prominent positions, such as doctors and lawyers. In every case he cited, the author seemed displeased with the concept of multiculturalism. I agree that the idea can be taken to extremes, but rather than just complaining about it, what does he suggest they do? How does the nation show respect to the newcomers? How should they go about teaching these new folks the customs and traditions of their new nation? How about language issues? As I asked in a previous paper, what do these immigrants really want? Do they want to come to this country to continue speaking in their native tongue? As the author noted in this article, it’s unlikely. The author notes that, in many countries, the concept of multiculturalism simply means that moral obligations have been met; it does not mean equality for all.
Michael R. Olneck, a professor of educational policy studies and sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, contends that, "Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans who support bilingual education in schools are part of a continuum of immigrant groups who have made the transition to learning English while also retaining their ethnic identity. Latino immigrants, he writes, "appear akin to late 19th-century Germans in welcoming the public schools' assistance in language maintenance." He adds that Latinos today don't expect full developmental bilingual education. Rather, a limited program for Spanish speakers in the elementary grades, such as what Cubans have in Miami, is satisfactory to them."
He notes, however, "that Asians tend to oppose bilingual education."
The Pithissippi Burning article is, in my view, a write-up by a disgruntled white man. What kind of human being spends his time keeping up with hate literature? What kind of hobby is that? He’s whining that our new president hasn’t created the “post racial” society that he talked about during his election campaign. Should Obama spend his time today worrying about the few haters in the world, or should he focus his time on, more pressing issues, like the economy? The author could benefit from spending a few minutes each day focusing on some of the positives this country has to offer and maybe even a weekly session with a counselor. The United States has its share of flaws, but is it really that bad? It seems to me this great nation allows us to choose our own path, and those who don’t like the choices they’ve made would prefer to point the finger at others rather than hold themselves accountable for their failures. What do you think?
The Challenge of Multicuturalism’ In How Americans View the Past and Future written by Samuel Taylor raised several interesting points about the purpose of American public schools. He states, “The purpose of American public education has never been to simply impart knowledge. One of its central goals has been to make children into Americans. “ Is this all bad? As I mentioned on the discussion board, immigrants come to this great nation with the hope of a better life. Should we continue to educate these people in their native tongue? What good would that do them? Should we incorporate their cultures into our school system? If so, how and to what extent should it be incorporated?
Take a look at what the governor of California thinks. “You’ve got to turn off the Spanish television set,” Arnold Schwarzenegger stated recently at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention, many of whose attendees write for Spanish-language media. According to California’s governor, that’s the key to learning English. "Schwarzenegger’s advice suggests that Spanish-speaking immigrants are not learning English, or at least not fast enough."
Let’s turn the table for a moment. If my family and friends moved to Japan, would it be acceptable for us to whine to the Japanese Board of Education that they aren’t teaching Japanese history to our liking? Would we have the right to demand the textbooks take a different viewpoint because we see World War II from a different perspective? Would we have the right to demand that their schools become more Americanized? If just a thousand of us moved to Japan and started baulking, people would laugh at us. Let’s make that number bigger. Let’s say a million of us moved to Japan. Is that enough? How about 5 million? Is multiculturalism a numbers thing? After reading all of these articles and reading the responses from my classmates on the discussion board, I have a better understanding of the frustrations and concerns that various stakeholders have on how and what’s being taught in our public schools. What happened to the old saying. I think it goes something like this , “ When in Rome, do as the Romans’ do”. Why doesn’t this apply to the immigrants coming to our nation? If I moved to Japan, I certainly wouldn’t expect Japan to change its textbooks or Americanize its classrooms. How is this any different?
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2009/04/what_do_immigrants_want_from_s.html
http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/hispanic/dialogue_opinion_letters/nam_arnold_0607.asp
Why Multicuturism is Wrong is an article that challenges the reader to consider the idea that mulitculturialism, as we know it here in the U.S., may be the source of our social problems and only a temporary idea. It appears Europe is one step ahead of the U.S. when it comes to handling its issues with immigrants. The author claims that multiculturalism limits freedom and possibility. He goes on to explain how, in some countries, it legitimizes racism and inequality. He specifically identified the Netherlands. The world multicultural is “systematically used as the opposite to equality”. In the Netherlands, African immigrants clean toilets, and upper middle class Dutch are in prominent positions, such as doctors and lawyers. In every case he cited, the author seemed displeased with the concept of multiculturalism. I agree that the idea can be taken to extremes, but rather than just complaining about it, what does he suggest they do? How does the nation show respect to the newcomers? How should they go about teaching these new folks the customs and traditions of their new nation? How about language issues? As I asked in a previous paper, what do these immigrants really want? Do they want to come to this country to continue speaking in their native tongue? As the author noted in this article, it’s unlikely. The author notes that, in many countries, the concept of multiculturalism simply means that moral obligations have been met; it does not mean equality for all.
Michael R. Olneck, a professor of educational policy studies and sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, contends that, "Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans who support bilingual education in schools are part of a continuum of immigrant groups who have made the transition to learning English while also retaining their ethnic identity. Latino immigrants, he writes, "appear akin to late 19th-century Germans in welcoming the public schools' assistance in language maintenance." He adds that Latinos today don't expect full developmental bilingual education. Rather, a limited program for Spanish speakers in the elementary grades, such as what Cubans have in Miami, is satisfactory to them."
He notes, however, "that Asians tend to oppose bilingual education."
The Pithissippi Burning article is, in my view, a write-up by a disgruntled white man. What kind of human being spends his time keeping up with hate literature? What kind of hobby is that? He’s whining that our new president hasn’t created the “post racial” society that he talked about during his election campaign. Should Obama spend his time today worrying about the few haters in the world, or should he focus his time on, more pressing issues, like the economy? The author could benefit from spending a few minutes each day focusing on some of the positives this country has to offer and maybe even a weekly session with a counselor. The United States has its share of flaws, but is it really that bad? It seems to me this great nation allows us to choose our own path, and those who don’t like the choices they’ve made would prefer to point the finger at others rather than hold themselves accountable for their failures. What do you think?
The Challenge of Multicuturalism’ In How Americans View the Past and Future written by Samuel Taylor raised several interesting points about the purpose of American public schools. He states, “The purpose of American public education has never been to simply impart knowledge. One of its central goals has been to make children into Americans. “ Is this all bad? As I mentioned on the discussion board, immigrants come to this great nation with the hope of a better life. Should we continue to educate these people in their native tongue? What good would that do them? Should we incorporate their cultures into our school system? If so, how and to what extent should it be incorporated?
Take a look at what the governor of California thinks. “You’ve got to turn off the Spanish television set,” Arnold Schwarzenegger stated recently at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists convention, many of whose attendees write for Spanish-language media. According to California’s governor, that’s the key to learning English. "Schwarzenegger’s advice suggests that Spanish-speaking immigrants are not learning English, or at least not fast enough."
Let’s turn the table for a moment. If my family and friends moved to Japan, would it be acceptable for us to whine to the Japanese Board of Education that they aren’t teaching Japanese history to our liking? Would we have the right to demand the textbooks take a different viewpoint because we see World War II from a different perspective? Would we have the right to demand that their schools become more Americanized? If just a thousand of us moved to Japan and started baulking, people would laugh at us. Let’s make that number bigger. Let’s say a million of us moved to Japan. Is that enough? How about 5 million? Is multiculturalism a numbers thing? After reading all of these articles and reading the responses from my classmates on the discussion board, I have a better understanding of the frustrations and concerns that various stakeholders have on how and what’s being taught in our public schools. What happened to the old saying. I think it goes something like this , “ When in Rome, do as the Romans’ do”. Why doesn’t this apply to the immigrants coming to our nation? If I moved to Japan, I certainly wouldn’t expect Japan to change its textbooks or Americanize its classrooms. How is this any different?
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2009/04/what_do_immigrants_want_from_s.html
http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/hispanic/dialogue_opinion_letters/nam_arnold_0607.asp
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
School and Religion-EDAD 7060
After reading both articles, I am still torn on the subject. I was born and raised in southern California and went to church for the first time when I attended graduate school at Lipscomb University in 2003; I was 25. As I am sure you can imagine, it was total shocker. It was the first time I had ever experienced Christian learning. To the best of my ability, I tried to keep an open mind and treated the teachings like a history lesson. During the two years I spent at Lipscomb, I started to develop some definite opinions about religion and learning, and I can see how and why religion in schools is so controversial. Though I would probably not go to Lipscomb again, the experience was unforgettable, and my understanding of religion has greatly improved as a result of my time there. Because of my background, I found this subject to be extremely interesting.
Both articles are essentially fighting the same battle, to me, it is about fear and intolerance. The article about the Gobitas family, for me, was far more interesting. It was part about religion in schools, the first amendment, and about respect. Regarding the first amendment, it seems folks are misusing it to their advantage. To better make my point, let's take a look at a completely different example. Cop Killer "is a 1992 song by Ice-T's heavy metal band Body Count, from its 1992 self-titled debut album. The lyrics are sung in the first person of an individual who is outraged by police brutality and decides to take the law into his own hands by killing violent, corrupt police officers. The song, which lyricist Ice-T referred to as a protest record was written in 1990, and was partially influenced by Psycho Killer by Talking Heads. The song provoked much controversy and negative reactions from politicians such as George Bush, Dan Quale and Tipper Gore; although, some defended the song on the basis of the band's First Amendment rights." This song lead a mentally unstable teenager to get a gun and shoot a police officer. The officer died. The First Amendment notes that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public, peace and to the security of the state." Cop Killer is an extreme example, but it clearly demonstrates that the First Amendment is being misused. Isn't this the same thing the Gobitas family is doing? When should we draw the line? What are we teaching kids when we allow people like the Gobitas family to have their way?
One of the most important things I learned between kindergarten and high school was how to respect others. That included respecting my classmate's beliefs, their physical being, their possessions, attitudes, and so on. Your parents can only teach you so much; they simply can't expose you to everything. That's why public school is so important. Public school brings people together from all walks of life. It gives children a chance to share ideas, listen, and, hopefully, learn about each other. During this time together, in a perfect world, these children will find common ground, become less afraid of each other's differences, and learn to enjoy and respect each other's attitudes and backgrounds. In the Gobitas situation, the kids did not want to salute the flag because of a passage in their readings. It seems hypocritical. The American flag is a symbol of freedom and thousands upon thousands of men fought and died to protect those freedoms. Out of respect for those who lived, fought and died before us, we should all salute the flag. I can see how this conflicts with the first amendment, but learning to show respect is and should continue to be an important part of K-12 education. At some point, we have to draw the line. If we don't, what will happen to our country, our children, and our future?
The beginning of the second article about the young atheist girl who was unwilling to participate in a moment of silence to pray or self-reflect is a good example of people taking things to an extreme level. What is this father teaching his daughter? Does he want her to be completely and totally disrespectful and intolerant of others? Does he want her to learn that if she doesn't get what she wants to scream and cry like a 2-year old? Just because some folks can yell loudly and have deep pockets to to fight a court case, doesn't mean their views should become law. There have always been and always will be folks who take things to extremes. Should they have the right to express their opinions? Of course they should, but that doesn't mean their word should become law.
The views presented in the two articles are nothing new and will continue to be argued and debated for decades. These articles are much more similar than they are different. What's alarming about both articles is that they scream fear and anger. What are biologists, religious believers, and atheists so afraid of? If an atheist's child learns about the history of religion, would that be so wrong? Would his child be damaged goods? If the daughter of a religious parent is introduced to evolution, will she turn on religion? If she did, would her parents still love her? What are we all so afraid of? Isn't school supposed to teach us about life? When I went to church for the first time at age 25, I did not turn green. I am the same person; I am better educated. I am tolerant and respectful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop_Killer_(song)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Both articles are essentially fighting the same battle, to me, it is about fear and intolerance. The article about the Gobitas family, for me, was far more interesting. It was part about religion in schools, the first amendment, and about respect. Regarding the first amendment, it seems folks are misusing it to their advantage. To better make my point, let's take a look at a completely different example. Cop Killer "is a 1992 song by Ice-T's heavy metal band Body Count, from its 1992 self-titled debut album. The lyrics are sung in the first person of an individual who is outraged by police brutality and decides to take the law into his own hands by killing violent, corrupt police officers. The song, which lyricist Ice-T referred to as a protest record was written in 1990, and was partially influenced by Psycho Killer by Talking Heads. The song provoked much controversy and negative reactions from politicians such as George Bush, Dan Quale and Tipper Gore; although, some defended the song on the basis of the band's First Amendment rights." This song lead a mentally unstable teenager to get a gun and shoot a police officer. The officer died. The First Amendment notes that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public, peace and to the security of the state." Cop Killer is an extreme example, but it clearly demonstrates that the First Amendment is being misused. Isn't this the same thing the Gobitas family is doing? When should we draw the line? What are we teaching kids when we allow people like the Gobitas family to have their way?
One of the most important things I learned between kindergarten and high school was how to respect others. That included respecting my classmate's beliefs, their physical being, their possessions, attitudes, and so on. Your parents can only teach you so much; they simply can't expose you to everything. That's why public school is so important. Public school brings people together from all walks of life. It gives children a chance to share ideas, listen, and, hopefully, learn about each other. During this time together, in a perfect world, these children will find common ground, become less afraid of each other's differences, and learn to enjoy and respect each other's attitudes and backgrounds. In the Gobitas situation, the kids did not want to salute the flag because of a passage in their readings. It seems hypocritical. The American flag is a symbol of freedom and thousands upon thousands of men fought and died to protect those freedoms. Out of respect for those who lived, fought and died before us, we should all salute the flag. I can see how this conflicts with the first amendment, but learning to show respect is and should continue to be an important part of K-12 education. At some point, we have to draw the line. If we don't, what will happen to our country, our children, and our future?
The beginning of the second article about the young atheist girl who was unwilling to participate in a moment of silence to pray or self-reflect is a good example of people taking things to an extreme level. What is this father teaching his daughter? Does he want her to be completely and totally disrespectful and intolerant of others? Does he want her to learn that if she doesn't get what she wants to scream and cry like a 2-year old? Just because some folks can yell loudly and have deep pockets to to fight a court case, doesn't mean their views should become law. There have always been and always will be folks who take things to extremes. Should they have the right to express their opinions? Of course they should, but that doesn't mean their word should become law.
The views presented in the two articles are nothing new and will continue to be argued and debated for decades. These articles are much more similar than they are different. What's alarming about both articles is that they scream fear and anger. What are biologists, religious believers, and atheists so afraid of? If an atheist's child learns about the history of religion, would that be so wrong? Would his child be damaged goods? If the daughter of a religious parent is introduced to evolution, will she turn on religion? If she did, would her parents still love her? What are we all so afraid of? Isn't school supposed to teach us about life? When I went to church for the first time at age 25, I did not turn green. I am the same person; I am better educated. I am tolerant and respectful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop_Killer_(song)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Makers vs Innovators EDAD 7060
According to Wikipedia, the term innovation refers to a new way of doing something. It may refer to incremental or radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations. The term "makers" seems, to an extent, very similar. When I first read this, I thought they meant the same thing but after spending some time thinking about it, it became clear to me that they are distinctly different. To keep it in simple terms, I thought I would use words often used in a business setting. What's the difference between leaders and managers? This certainly isn't the same thing, but I think it makes the difference between makers and innovators much more clear. Leaders are similar to innovators in that they are creative problems solvers and usually have a clear vision. Makers and managers, in my opinion, are the doers. They take the idea from the innovator or leader and put it into action. Innovators and leaders usually get all the glory, but the latter half is equally, if not, more important. They take action and when they do, stuff gets done.
Horace Mann is an interesting guy and had an amazing life. The write-up on him was fascinating because it made him look a bit like a hypocrite, yet I think if we'd lived during his time, we might better understand his actions. He had a vision of all children learning in a "common" school, yet he did not publicly support integration. The reality is, he probably would have committed political suicide if he'd publicly supported it. He created the Board of Ed (that probably qualifies him as a maker too). This massive accomplishment started to narrow the divide between social classes. I wonder if he'd be pleased with our current educational system? In my view, Horace Mann is clearly a leader and innovator. He changed the way people view education in this country during an extremely challenging time. His contribution to education today is enormous. Frankly, I do not know how to put it in two to three sentences.
Henry Ford is probably both an innovator and maker but, for this example, I think he clearly stands out as a maker. Henry understood competition and productivity. He wanted the average person to be able to afford a car so he began the process of developing a system that could produce cars faster and for less money. He understood that it would be easier to hire and train people if they didn't have to learn the entire process of putting a car together. He broke the car assembly into segments, and began the process of creating an assembly line. The assembly line is used in nearly every manufacturing facility across the world. Today, the assembly line is sometimes refereed to as dehumanizing, but it certainly has its advantages. Mr. Ford was a doer. His most significant contribution to education is probably business education. I don't believe there is a single MBA program that doesn't spend a chunk of time studying Mr. Ford. His contribution is still evident today and used widely across the globe.
Horace Mann is an interesting guy and had an amazing life. The write-up on him was fascinating because it made him look a bit like a hypocrite, yet I think if we'd lived during his time, we might better understand his actions. He had a vision of all children learning in a "common" school, yet he did not publicly support integration. The reality is, he probably would have committed political suicide if he'd publicly supported it. He created the Board of Ed (that probably qualifies him as a maker too). This massive accomplishment started to narrow the divide between social classes. I wonder if he'd be pleased with our current educational system? In my view, Horace Mann is clearly a leader and innovator. He changed the way people view education in this country during an extremely challenging time. His contribution to education today is enormous. Frankly, I do not know how to put it in two to three sentences.
Henry Ford is probably both an innovator and maker but, for this example, I think he clearly stands out as a maker. Henry understood competition and productivity. He wanted the average person to be able to afford a car so he began the process of developing a system that could produce cars faster and for less money. He understood that it would be easier to hire and train people if they didn't have to learn the entire process of putting a car together. He broke the car assembly into segments, and began the process of creating an assembly line. The assembly line is used in nearly every manufacturing facility across the world. Today, the assembly line is sometimes refereed to as dehumanizing, but it certainly has its advantages. Mr. Ford was a doer. His most significant contribution to education is probably business education. I don't believe there is a single MBA program that doesn't spend a chunk of time studying Mr. Ford. His contribution is still evident today and used widely across the globe.
Introduction
Hey Class,I am not a big blogging or social networking fan but am starting to understand its importance. I have always liked my privacy so sharing my opinions and everyday thoughts for the world to see is a little out of my comfort zone. I, personally, prefer the discussion board in the online classroom, since it's a bit more private, but I will happily keep up with everyone for the semester. About me, I grew up in San Diego and graduated high school there. I earned my undergraduate degree at Central WA University in Consumer Science, worked for about five years in sales, and headed back to school at Lipscomb. I earned a MBA with a specialization in Acct in 2003. I currently work for Columbia State Community College. I am in my first class at MTSU and am hopeful I can earn a EDS in Leadership in the next few years. I will look forward to getting to know everyone in the coming semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)