In The New York Times, Sam Dillon wrote an article titled "Online Schooling Grows, Setting Off a Debate". The article discussed the new trend of online schooling that is slowly increasing in America . Somewhere around half a million children are taking online classes and some are receiving only learning from the virtual public schooling that now exists. Online schooling is raising a controversy because of it's recent growth and issues like whether or not online learning is a good thing for younger children have started getting questioned. Wisconsin, Florida, and Illinois are all places where online schooling has begun to rise. At the moment most of these online schools only allow middle school and high school students to enter. However, some parents are home-schooling their elementary school children, but legally are considered public school students because the online teaching is taxpayer financed and the children can be subject to federal testing requirements. Online schooling gives students a chance to move at their own pace through lessons, which is different from public schooling greatly. Overall, this new form of teaching is going to be met with a great deal of opposition, but that doesn't mean that the supporters won't go down without a fight.
Personally, I disagree with the majority of online schooling, but do see that it is helpful in some cases. I don't disagree with online schooling because it eliminates a lot of my job opportunities as a future teacher; I disagree with it because online schooling can cause a great deal of damage to a student in my opinion. Students need the actual environment of school because it provides social and personal growth that cannot exist in home schooling settings. Public schools are sometimes a painful and emotional experience for an individual; however, I would rather have painful memories than no social skills and the overall experience of school no matter what grade it is. Friendships, bonding and even boyfriends and girlfriends are all much harder to acheive when you don't attend an actual school. Even though a student may be able to learn at a better pace with home-schooling, they are going to run into much larger problems later in life. Look at me for example, I'm still struggling with public speaking and I never was home-schooled!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Does 0 + 0 Really = 50 percent?
I am posting this entry in response to an article from the Las Vegas Sun entitled, "A Floor For Failing Grades". This article depicts that some schools in the American southwest are making the effort to set a grade of 50, or 59 in some schools, as the new "minimum F". The raising of the minimum F is intended to give weaker students a better chance of passing. Ideally, the goal of this initiative is to keep them from becoming "prematurely doomed" by the numbers that stand strong behind report card letter grades.
The school district in question's grading system convert's each student's numerical scores to letter grades. All students that score below a 60, whether they are 59, 29, or 0, still will earn an F letter grade. The numerical scores carry through and also determine the final letter grades for each semester, as well as at the end of the school year. This proposed highering of the minimum F thus will make it so that if a student has a very low F in the first half of the semester, it could cause him or her to fail the class regardless of a drastic change in overall performance. Basically, they've lost before they've decided to even begin.
Advocates for a change like this continue to argue that this is the way to keep kids from giving up. If students were to learn that they don't even have a shot at passing the class at the end of the year simply based on their performance in the beginning of the year, chances are that would be the end of what little motivation they may have still possessed. Andre Denson, southeast region superintendent, went on record with stating his logic: "What do we tell our students who are failing in October- 'Go home, there's no hope for you, come back in January'? With a 50 percent minimum, a kid has a chance."
Like all hot button topics, there is another side to the argument as well. Many teachers and parents alike disapprove of the new grading concept. Sherry Harmon, a mother of a seventh grader at Thurman White Middle School claims to have very mixed feelings regarding the new grading methods. She states that, "Eventually, kids are going to have to go on to college and into the real world. What happens when someone isn't willing to give them 50 points for doing nothing?" Other parental figures have been noted as saying that even if a student were to slack off, but put in a minimul amount of effort, chances are they should still be able to pull off a C.
The question I ask myself after contemplating the subject matter of this article is this: Will it even matter to those it concerns the most--the kids? Whether the minimum F be a 0, or a 50, some kids, I believe may not even care. However, I do think the new policy's intentions are in the right place in the manner of giving kids a second chance of sorts if they were to have a change of heart regarding their performance. Although, such a switch in policy may lead some kids to continue to slack off even more simply because a 50 doesn't seem nearly as bad as a 0. Regardless of scoring, among other things, we are trying to teach our kids the ability to evaluate themselves individually without someone having to tell them whether or not they are right or wrong. We are teaching these children to be concious of themselves not only as individuals, but also as members of their community. Teaching mediocrity, as one blogger responding to this article already put it, isn't the answer. We should be teaching students to have a desire to achieve rather than boosting grades for the simple reason that it may help them if they choose to take the opportunity.
The school district in question's grading system convert's each student's numerical scores to letter grades. All students that score below a 60, whether they are 59, 29, or 0, still will earn an F letter grade. The numerical scores carry through and also determine the final letter grades for each semester, as well as at the end of the school year. This proposed highering of the minimum F thus will make it so that if a student has a very low F in the first half of the semester, it could cause him or her to fail the class regardless of a drastic change in overall performance. Basically, they've lost before they've decided to even begin.
Advocates for a change like this continue to argue that this is the way to keep kids from giving up. If students were to learn that they don't even have a shot at passing the class at the end of the year simply based on their performance in the beginning of the year, chances are that would be the end of what little motivation they may have still possessed. Andre Denson, southeast region superintendent, went on record with stating his logic: "What do we tell our students who are failing in October- 'Go home, there's no hope for you, come back in January'? With a 50 percent minimum, a kid has a chance."
Like all hot button topics, there is another side to the argument as well. Many teachers and parents alike disapprove of the new grading concept. Sherry Harmon, a mother of a seventh grader at Thurman White Middle School claims to have very mixed feelings regarding the new grading methods. She states that, "Eventually, kids are going to have to go on to college and into the real world. What happens when someone isn't willing to give them 50 points for doing nothing?" Other parental figures have been noted as saying that even if a student were to slack off, but put in a minimul amount of effort, chances are they should still be able to pull off a C.
The question I ask myself after contemplating the subject matter of this article is this: Will it even matter to those it concerns the most--the kids? Whether the minimum F be a 0, or a 50, some kids, I believe may not even care. However, I do think the new policy's intentions are in the right place in the manner of giving kids a second chance of sorts if they were to have a change of heart regarding their performance. Although, such a switch in policy may lead some kids to continue to slack off even more simply because a 50 doesn't seem nearly as bad as a 0. Regardless of scoring, among other things, we are trying to teach our kids the ability to evaluate themselves individually without someone having to tell them whether or not they are right or wrong. We are teaching these children to be concious of themselves not only as individuals, but also as members of their community. Teaching mediocrity, as one blogger responding to this article already put it, isn't the answer. We should be teaching students to have a desire to achieve rather than boosting grades for the simple reason that it may help them if they choose to take the opportunity.
Friday, February 1, 2008
No Child Left Behind
George Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" has helped some students but hurts many others. Students who are fortunate enough to attend schools with good teachers, have parents with money, and schools with plenty of resources benefit from this act. In order to keep government aid, schools need to have a certain percentage of passing students and if they dont, they lose their aid. So the schools that need the money the most - lose it. The education policies of George W. Bush are not working for every student and luckily he will be out of office soon.
However, Bush called on congress in his last state of the union address to "rereauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act. But the one concrete idea he proposed in the speech—$300 million for public and private school choice—won't generate much enthusiasm in Congress, particularly from Democrats." Why is that? Because americans have realized that taking money from the schools who obviously need MORE money is idiotic. Putting fire under someone to perform doesnt equal results when one is dealing with education. The tough love attitude is misplaced here because in many cases the children's ability is the result of poor circumstance.
As a part of the No Child Left Behind program, Bush wants to introduce "Pell Grants for kids" which would "provide grants on a competitive basis to states, school districts, cities, and non-profit organizations to create scholarship programs for low-income students in schools that have missed their achievement targets under the NCLB law, and in high schools in which graduation rates are lower than 60 percent. " This continuation relys heavily on competition, students should have a motivation but losing all funding shouldnt be part of it. And if these kids have already missed targets, it could be too late.
However, Bush called on congress in his last state of the union address to "rereauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act. But the one concrete idea he proposed in the speech—$300 million for public and private school choice—won't generate much enthusiasm in Congress, particularly from Democrats." Why is that? Because americans have realized that taking money from the schools who obviously need MORE money is idiotic. Putting fire under someone to perform doesnt equal results when one is dealing with education. The tough love attitude is misplaced here because in many cases the children's ability is the result of poor circumstance.
As a part of the No Child Left Behind program, Bush wants to introduce "Pell Grants for kids" which would "provide grants on a competitive basis to states, school districts, cities, and non-profit organizations to create scholarship programs for low-income students in schools that have missed their achievement targets under the NCLB law, and in high schools in which graduation rates are lower than 60 percent. " This continuation relys heavily on competition, students should have a motivation but losing all funding shouldnt be part of it. And if these kids have already missed targets, it could be too late.
Good grades= $$
Many parents have different ways of showing affection. Sometimes, for best school effort. The parents give money to their kids. Now, in the article "Good grades pay off literary," school are coping the idea of giving students money for good grades. These statisics of "30% rise in the number of students with high SAT and ACT scores and an 8% rise in college-going students," can be argued with (Toppo 1). These students are given eight bulks an hour for either entering an advance course, or passing a hard test. Even other schools like "at Northeast Health Science Magnet High School in Macon, Ga., principal Sam Scavella says he's trying lots of different incentives for doing the right thing. If students attend Saturday study sessions, they qualify for an iPod, movie tickets or a dinner for two, among other prizes" (Toppo 1). Who can disagree with this?! College students would love this, but I am not one of them.
I personally hate when people get paid for hard work. I have been given other things than money, when I passed a test or hard course. I got a smile, and a pat on the back. Free. I love things that came free. I was a hard worker, and my parents loved to help me when the could. I was mostly on my own, or asked for the teachers help. When I read this article, I felt that students are turning more into money hungery. Why are they giving ipods Macon?! IPods are another distraction from class. That also can make the student play with music, than study for more money or another free movie tickets. No, I think students need teachers with a smile or more complients than $$.
I agree with Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, when he said "Bribing kids for higher test scores — or paying teachers bounties for their students' work — is similar to giving them steroid. Short-term performance might improve but the long-term effects can be very damaging" (Toppo). This reminds me of the dogs. When they are given treats for going to the bathroom, then they learn. "Ah, I go outside for a time. Then I get more meaty treats!" They will just pretend to outside, and bark to come back in. Then, a few minutes later. They get their treat, but you find a mess for the wasted treat. Students are the same way.
My sister is another example. She has a hard time for history, but she wanted to try the money for good grades. This is not the time to spread money around! The gas prices are on the rise, and food is joining behind the gas prices. Why would schools waste money on paying students to do well, than heating or feeding the population? This idea is a stupid one. I don't think money will solve everything. Sure, the statisics prove an increase, but a small one. A greater help is complients, and having the pin saying "Honor roll" than a dollar bill that can last for a soda or a dollar burger. Students do need feed back, and they also need to appreciate the value of getting good grades. Money is useful for food, gas, and paying bills. Not for students who pass their tests or courses.
I personally hate when people get paid for hard work. I have been given other things than money, when I passed a test or hard course. I got a smile, and a pat on the back. Free. I love things that came free. I was a hard worker, and my parents loved to help me when the could. I was mostly on my own, or asked for the teachers help. When I read this article, I felt that students are turning more into money hungery. Why are they giving ipods Macon?! IPods are another distraction from class. That also can make the student play with music, than study for more money or another free movie tickets. No, I think students need teachers with a smile or more complients than $$.
I agree with Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, when he said "Bribing kids for higher test scores — or paying teachers bounties for their students' work — is similar to giving them steroid. Short-term performance might improve but the long-term effects can be very damaging" (Toppo). This reminds me of the dogs. When they are given treats for going to the bathroom, then they learn. "Ah, I go outside for a time. Then I get more meaty treats!" They will just pretend to outside, and bark to come back in. Then, a few minutes later. They get their treat, but you find a mess for the wasted treat. Students are the same way.
My sister is another example. She has a hard time for history, but she wanted to try the money for good grades. This is not the time to spread money around! The gas prices are on the rise, and food is joining behind the gas prices. Why would schools waste money on paying students to do well, than heating or feeding the population? This idea is a stupid one. I don't think money will solve everything. Sure, the statisics prove an increase, but a small one. A greater help is complients, and having the pin saying "Honor roll" than a dollar bill that can last for a soda or a dollar burger. Students do need feed back, and they also need to appreciate the value of getting good grades. Money is useful for food, gas, and paying bills. Not for students who pass their tests or courses.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Good grades pay off literally...
In USA today, Greg Toppo wrote an article titled "Good grades pay off- literally". "In at least a dozen states this school year, students who bring home top marks can expect more than just gratitude."
As a student in college, I can recall certain times where my mom would give me twenty dollars or so for a "top mark" test or report card. Though it is a good way to get children to study, I feel that if it turns into an unhealthy habit, the child might not perform his or her best when not being rewarded with cash.
The parents who read this article seem to like the idea, or they do not. Some feel that it is dangerous, and some think that it scholarship money, not flat out cash.
Going into a deeper level, what are these young children going to do with 500 dollars they receive? Unless a check is made out to the parents, I feel the child can get into a lot of trouble, or even hurt.
I do not disagree with rewarding your child for their good grades, but honestly, I think this is pushing the limit, don't you think? A comment was made on this article that read: "This is something for parents. Once we get the state involved, soon it will be Washington involved. Next, they will be paid for essays that agree with the government positions. This can get dangerous." Is this person serious? Whose ever idea this was, I feel they are just trying to start brainwashing these innocent children at the youngest age they can, which I think is pathetic.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Learning with incentive...
On USA Today's website there was an article entitled "Good grades pay off — literally" by Greg Toppo which explained a new educational tool emerging in the United States. The title of the article basically gives away what this new educational tool is. Toppo states, "these days, some students are finding that good grades can bring them cash and luxury gifts". In places like New York City, kids are getting chances to win/receive decent amounts of money just for improving their scores on tests they have to take throughout the year. This new incentive to learn has been met with both support and opposition. Tommie Sue Anthony, the president of the Arkansas Advanced Initiative for Math and Science, believes that this new program is good because it provides incentive for low-income and minority students. Others disagree and think it is a damaging concept to continue.
As a student I am opposed to this new form of incentive. I find it to be a damaging practice because it makes me assume that these students cannot get good grades without doing it for free money. I tend to believe that almost all students would try harder if they knew they were getting money in return. Children sometimes get money for doing chores around their house and when this concept is applied to our educational system I think it is rather depressing to think that students begin to do better once money is involved. I don't believe in this new incentive at all. When I worked for something I wanted I did it because I enjoyed being independent and gained a sense of pride when I was able to do something alone. I cannot understand why we still try to solve problems with money. Good teachers do not get more money than bad teachers. The effort you put in at the workplace does not grant you free money. This is why I found this new incentive to be a doomed concept. I believe in helping less fortunate students, but raising test scores does not seem like a good enough reason to give students money.
As a student I am opposed to this new form of incentive. I find it to be a damaging practice because it makes me assume that these students cannot get good grades without doing it for free money. I tend to believe that almost all students would try harder if they knew they were getting money in return. Children sometimes get money for doing chores around their house and when this concept is applied to our educational system I think it is rather depressing to think that students begin to do better once money is involved. I don't believe in this new incentive at all. When I worked for something I wanted I did it because I enjoyed being independent and gained a sense of pride when I was able to do something alone. I cannot understand why we still try to solve problems with money. Good teachers do not get more money than bad teachers. The effort you put in at the workplace does not grant you free money. This is why I found this new incentive to be a doomed concept. I believe in helping less fortunate students, but raising test scores does not seem like a good enough reason to give students money.
The Blog Rules and Schedule (Spring 2008)
Welcome, Fundamental Fulminators!
Below is a listing of the blog schedule accompanied by brief rules for participation. If you are scheduled to comment on an entry and the entry is not on the page, feel free to comment on any recent posting.
Below is a listing of the blog schedule accompanied by brief rules for participation. If you are scheduled to comment on an entry and the entry is not on the page, feel free to comment on any recent posting.
Blog Schedule
Entries are due on the date listed. Comments (C) are due the day following. Commenters must address the entry posted by the person listed above their name (e.g. Steve must comment on Dan’s entry by February 2nd). Please note that only two entries and two comments have been scheduled. To meet the three entry/three comment requirement, you must contribute a third entry and a third comment on days for which you are not scheduled.
February
1 Dan Carroll
C: Steve Chin
Megan Cook
C: Caitlin Dougher
Nicole Dunne
C: Becky Fall
Ashley Fischetti
C: Katie Jackson
8 Jacynth Johnson
C: Pat Kiely
Heather Siddle
C: Christy Ladue
Lindsay Mang
C: Dominique Marable
Jordan Paolini
C: Laice Redman
15 Steve Chin
C: Lori Richards
Katie Jackson
C: Starr Richie
Christian Ruiz
C: Andrew Sokol
Susan Stewart
C: Nicole Dunne
22 Laice Redman
C: Megan Cook
Jackie Sullivan
C: Jordan Paolini
Kristen Usher
C: Nicole Wabshinak
Hillary Whelden
C: La’Shera Wynn
29 Pat Kiely
C: Heather Siddle
Christian Ruiz
C: Lori Richards
Caitlin Dougher
C: Ashley Fischetti
Starr Richie
C: Jackie Sullivan
March
7 Andrew Sokol
C: Susan Stewart
Kristen Usher
C: Jacynth Johnson
Becky Fall
La’Shera Wynn
C: Nicole Wabshinak
14 Hillary Whelden
C: Dan Carroll
Caitlin Dougher
C: Christian Ruiz
Lori Richards
C: Jordan Paolini
Jackie Sullivan
C: Ashley Fischetti
28 Becky Fall
C: Kristen Usher
Nicole Wabshinak
C: Lindsay Mang
Christy Ladue
C: Megan Cook
Laice Redman
C: Jacynth Johnson
April
4 Dominique Marable
C: Heather Siddle
Nicole Dunne
C: Katie Jackson
Pat Kiely
C: Steve Chin
La’Shera Wynn
11 Starr Richie
C: Susan Stewart
Megan Cook
C: Jackie Sullivan
Andrew Sokol
C: Laice Redman
18 Jordan Paolini
C: Pat Kiely
Heather Siddle
C: Dan Carroll
Hillary Whelden
C: Christian Ruiz
25 Lori Richards
C: Lindsay Mang
Susan Stewart
C: Kristen Usher
Katie Jackson
C: Andrew Sokol
Christy Ladue
C: Starr Richie
Dominique Marable
C: Caitlin Dougher
May
2 Nicole Wabshinak
C: Hillary Whelden
Dan Carroll
C: Becky Fall
Steve Chin
C: Nicole Dunne
9 Ashley Fischetti
C: Dominique Marable
Jacynth Johnson
C: La’Shera Wynn
Lindsay Mang
C: Christy Ladue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)