If the educational system in America is going to undergo such a dramatic change, we need to find a way that encourages creativity, while at the same time teaches students the necessary skills in order to be successful in life after school. The reality is that No Child Left Behind needs a major face-lift. The goals set forth are good ideas to enhance education, but that’s just what they were, ideas. We have recently seen these ideas studied and scrutinized by many, but they have also done what they were set forth to do: raise test scores. Like I said before, test scores are not what education is about, education is about learning and grasping a subject.
First is to make good people, next is to make good citizens, and last is to make each person his or her best. He states that many of us think this is true and some schools even exercise this but in the real world we are wrong. The Prussia style of schooling teaches the children the worst aspects of culture. Gatto then states that the real purposes of schooling which he says he learned from James Bryant Conant. He says without Conant the schooling wouldn’t have the same style and degree of standard testing we have today.
Gatto uses this example of knowledge to prove his point that not every successful child went to school. A second time Gatto uses exemplification is when he is explaining his own experience in the school system as a teacher. He remembers that “my own experience had revealed to me what many other teachers must learn along the way, too, yet keep to themselves for fear of reprisal: if we wanted to we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling”. He uses this personal lesson from life to convey that children are only obeying what they are being told, only learning what they need to in order to escape the prison called school. In an example from his childhood, Gatto remembers talking with his grandfather and he “complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head.
Kent J. Fetzer expressed, “Our biggest problem with a school uniform policy is the anti-individuality message it sends.” He feels students lose their freedom when forced to conform to only certain apparels. He believes in letting students experience freedom in order to learn how to act responsibly. I strongly believe teens need to learn how to act responsibly at a young age to develop skills for the future, but I refuse to believe that uniforms take away individuality. In contrast to Fetzer’s beliefs, Mike Kelly proclaimed, "Uniforms instill discipline, help students focus on their studies and eliminate pressure on parents to outfit their kids." He believes uniforms help parents as well as the students.
The valedictorian knows this and follows the teacher’s orders exactly, which shows that he is not necessarily academically exceptional. As stated by House, just as the valedictorian has figured out the system, the loser has too. Yet instead of follow the valedictorian, he does not want to raise expectations for himself, for there is no incentive to do more work. House explains that because valedictorians do not have the former guidance, when
In the second article, “A Growing Sense of Entitlement,” Navarrette argues that parents have instilled a sense of entitlement in their children because they have spoiled them and have neglected to instill hard working values in them. He also argues that students believe they should be entitled to receiving a better grade but they do not put in full effort and study required to reach them. This article can relate to Neusner because both
The only negative I see in the self-contained setting is the fact that the kids are sometimes cut off from the general education students. Socializing and interacting with other students is very important during a student’s educational experience. This is the time where kids learn to be tolerant of other people’s differences and learn to work with others. The inclusive classroom to me should only be prescribed on a case by case basis. I feel it is a good idea in theory but in some cases it is just not a reasonable solution to me.
These authors believe different factors affect the performance of a student, but also agrees on the toll it takes on their whole life. In "the secret to raising smart kids", Dweck explains his theory of how being raised with a certain mindset, effects hoe people perform not only in class, but in life as well. Lines (24-26) explains how being raised with a "fixed" mindset will carry with a person throughout their life. This mindset causes people to believe they only know what they were born knowing and there's no reason to try to learn or attempt anything else (115-117). There is, however, another mindset called "growth".
I am sorry to say I did not. According to Palmer (2007) “I posses the power to create conditions that can help students learn a great deal or keep them from learning at all.” (p7.) Since I am the one who possess that power to create conditions where all students can learn I have to ask what could I have done differently? Accordingly to the Dalton Sherman did I not believe in my students did I let them down by not doing everything I could to get them ready for college or the workforce? Was I connected to all my students or just the ones that were easier to deal with?
But when a school system puts uniforms into place, and then makes you wear a certain color shirt because of you grades, that's just asking for more bullying and fights. I'm really trying to understand their thinking process on this issue. Maybe they figured, if you're in the lower grade color, you will start trying harder. It's a concept that I believe is completely wrong, but it's the only reason I could think of on why they would do this. I really don't believe that I could ever grow to like this concept at all.