Chapter 11: Getting Real at New York's Urban Academy High School
This school was established in 1985. It was a school designed to take in children who were failing at other schools. It was also referred to as a "second chance school" and the "last chance" school.
Urban offers classes that are competitive and comparable to some college courses. It is not a high tech school and emphasizes its school credo as having a sense of family. Individual needs, and not institutional needs, drive this school. Urban is about teaching students to think for themselves and overcome their obstacles. They strive to teach their students to think and question.
Chapter 12: A Word from the Army - KISS
This chapter summarized ideas from several people.
Snyder Ideas: Families that talk at dinner are more successful in reading comprehension. However, the underlying message is communication. He visualized technology to bring individuals together and not to keep them apart. Oppenheimer, however, states that it's not that simple, since families who typically enjoy family dinners enjoy other finer things in life.
Albrecht Ideas: "It's not the computer that has excited the students; it's the physical machinery, the presence of a real tool, and a real world activity." When comparing use of technology and Albrecht's use of a foldable ruler which caused the same ooh's and ahh's in his classroom. Albrecht feels that the same effect can be achieved using $50 worth of manipulatives rather than using computers that cost several times more. Albrecht emphasizes the importance of appropriate tool selection. The use of electronic manipulatives (those that simulate the effects of real hands on tools) is not appropriate tool selection.
Schwartz Ideas: Believes technology is not going anywhere and we just need to learn to "confront its powers and its weaknesses." He prefers to stick to simple technologies.
Chapter 13: The Human Touch
Oppenheimer examines two K-5 schools, which literally sit side by side (share the same building) and whose students share the same demographics. Student numbers are roughly the same in each.
- Starms Discovery Learning Center School: devoted itself to current educational reform ideas which included technology. Starms received several generous grants and utilized the money for technology while maintaining a teacher/student ratio of 20:1.
- Urban Waldorf School: focused on the "avoidance" of technology especially in the early grades. The money received by Waldorf was not as substantial as Starms was, however, with the money they did receive they hire two specialists to work with their special needs children. Waldorf's emphasis is to learn through the senses while maintaining a teacher/student ratio of about 20:1.
Concepts we favored:
- We actually both enjoyed reading about Urban, especially when it gave specific accounts of courses taught at Urban. One such example, was Wally Math, a course taught by Walter Warshawsky who uses puzzles to teach math. He took his kids on a field trip to Staten Island. They were equipped with a straw, the height of the Statue of Liberty, and a semicircular angle ruler. Students were to work in teams to determine Staten Island's proximity to particular points on Manhattan's shore. This was all part of a Trigonometry lesson. We liked the lesson because it was a hands-on lesson rather than a simulated lesson that had the students working in groups around a computer.
- Wally says that "there's nothing more sophisticated than our brains." We agree with this statement made by Wally and feel that Oppenheimer references this several times throughout the book as well, stating that the use of computers takes the imagination and creativity away from the students.
- "In the U.S., we do things quickly. Then we have to do them over and over again." This seems to be the current prevailing thought when it comes to teaching the curriculum. As teachers we are instructed to continue moving along the pacing guide despite the lack of mastery achieved since concepts will be revisited again.
- Smaller class sizes seems to be an effective reform paired with increased salaries to promote the recruitment of qualified and effective teachers. This has been known as an effective way of increasing student achievement for quite some time, but yet nothing has been done.
Concept that made us shake in our boots:
- Looping for 8 years (or even 5). While we both agreed that this would provide for deeper relationships and a better understanding of each individual's needs, quite honestly, there are relationships that just don't work with certain children (or their parents). Looping with a student who clearly does not relate well with the teacher would instead be a hindrance and could be potentially frustrating for all parties involved.
Notable Quotes from the Conclusion:
- Now that educators know how youngsters excel: "One would think that the nation's policy makers, armed with this information, could come up with something better than a lengthier sheet of multiple choice questions, millions of new test essays, and a corps of evaluators who don't have a skill or the time to do their job."
- "For decades, we have taken people who we hold responsible for the intellectual and moral development of our children, put them in chaotic, overcrowded institutions, robbed them of creative freedom and new opportunities for their own learning, imposed an ever-changing stream of rules and performance requirements that leave them exhausted and hopeless, and paid them about $40,000 a year for their trouble-far less, proportionately speaking, than teachers earn in most other industrialized societies."
- "Then when our children seem aimless and turn to machines and violence to feel some sense of power and self expression, we wonder why. No we don't, actually. We blame the teachers."
Oppenheimer concludes with his hopes for teachers. The ones that stand out include:
- More funding for education.
- Check out fancy research claims prior to embarking on the new trends.
- Schools should address physical needs of school (logistical issues) prior to spending on technological needs.
- Offer teachers a decent living.
- Don't fall for the latest and greatest in technology without doing the research (be sure it's effective and useful)
Marcy and Kerri
11 comments:
Once again, I agree with much of what you pointed out from the end of the book. I also think with the hopes that Oppenheimer mentions that it is also important to remember that technolgoy will not fix what's wrong with schools. It is important to know how and when to use technology and how to separate it. Before you can do this you have actually think about it. The thinking and standing up for what you know is right, being underpaid for all the time in and out of the classroom, the accountability, $ spent, etc., in my opinion, makes our professions one of the most difficult, complicated, and troubled, as mentioned in Oppenheimer.
Another notable quote that I took time to reflect on was "You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough" (poet, William Blake). In our society I think it is rare for us to think about something and weigh the good and bad before we act. After we act we reflect, relize, and regret in some instances.
Kerri and Marcy stated..."In the U.S., we do things quickly. Then we have to do them over and over again." This seems to be the current prevailing thought when it comes to teaching the curriculum... I certainly agree with their statement, especially when it comes to math concepts. Children are exposed to so many goals and outcomes in math, as an educator, I really wonder if this is a good way to teach. I understand the idea that they will be exposed to these concepts again in the future, but will they forget the information by then? One issue we have in the fifth grade is students who never really memorized their multiplication facts. Without this basic skill, teaching other higher level concepts like division or fractions becomes very difficult and frustrating. Perhaps if we would focus on mastering the basic skills in elementary school, higher level skills would be easier to learn and understand.
I strongly agree with Oppenheimer as Kerri and Marcy referenced him stating throughout his book that the "use of computers takes the imagination and creativity away from the students." I believe educators put too much of an emphasis on computers and incorporating them into as much of their curriculum as possible-many times in unhelpful ways. It all comes down to how effectively you use the computer within your classroom. Many teachers believe they are being creative and benefiting the students by allowing them access to computers several times a week. They do not stop to think about what the main purpose of the lesson is that they want to address and the main skills they would like students to gain and benefit from when using the computer. They do not ask themselves if their students would gain more from the lesson (creativity and imagination) just by using hands-on materials and performance lessons.
When students have access to the computer they are confined to whatever information comes up on the computer screen-whether it be correct or incorrect information which is being provided. They enter a simulated world where they believe everything they see, do and learn on the computer is correct. The computer at times does not allow students to use their powerful minds to create and imagine things in the world around them. Instead they are warped into a "virtual reality" which gives them all their answers by a click of a button and does not allow children to use their own imaginations to picture what something could possibly look like based on the information given to them.
Once again we can fall back on the simplicity of books, which not only provide us with information, but also allow students to use their imagination and creativity to make sense of the information, in their own way.
I would also like to add that I believe computers not only take creativity and imagination away from students, but patience as well. Always getting what you want, when you want, and fast (by a click of a button) is not always a good thing.
I too was interested in the ideas of “Wally Math” I think we sometimes forget that simple things can be technology too; it doesn’t always have to be computers, wireless internets and LCD projectors. It was interesting to see a teacher getting back to basics but still using technology. I think it is important for students to learn the “long” way of doing things rather than always using technology or an “easier” way out. On specific example that was stated in the book was the use of learning a sextant, it is hard to imagine that we have many ship captains and mates that do not know how to navigate without the use of electronic equipment. I think it is important for teacher and administrators to think outside the box of traditional technology or in the case of “Wally Math” maybe we need to think inside the bag.
Stephanie mentioned in her response that habitual computer use robs students of patience. “Always getting what you want, when you want, and fast (by a click of a button) is not always a good thing.” I wholly agree with Stephanie’s view and believe that this negative effect of computer use is too often overlooked and/or ignored. An important component of learning is the ability to be patient and diligent while thoroughly exploring and comprehending concepts. On a computer, the user can quickly move through programs, information, and games without dedicating sufficient thought to the material presented. For example, in the computer game solitaire, if the hand dealt appears too difficult or takes too long, one can instantly deal again without consequence or ‘wasting’ time to think through the game. If a game causes this inclination, I imagine that the likelihood for similar reactions would greatly increase when one faces information requiring analyzation or deep reflection. Rather than building the skills of patience and dedication, computers teach students to surrender when immediate answers are unavailable becoming frustrated with the learning process.
I completely agree with Melissa that basic math skills must first be learned in order for students to more easily understand higher level skills. When talking about the tremendous amount of goals and outcomes that students have to learn in math, Melissa poses the question, "I understand the idea that they will be exposed to these concepts again in the future, but will they forget the information by then? In Anne Arundel County, prior to the new curriculum, we were told to teach a certain concept for a certain amount of days and then move on. Unlike the curriculum we are using today, most of those concepts never got revisited at all, leaving those students who "didn't get it" left out to dry. Even though the curriculum we are using now does often touch on concepts very quickly and then moves on, a student who does forget the material will have a second chance at "getting it" when the concept is revisited. Even though this may not be the best approach to teaching the curriculum, I feel that it is better than not revisiting the concepts at all.
Robin also stated that, “On a computer, the user can quickly move through programs, information, and games without dedicating sufficient thought to the material presented.” I couldn’t agree more with this statement. While working with first graders on an addition and subtraction program, I noticed that many students were simply guessing at many of the more complicated problems in order to get to the next problem and move through the program faster than the student next to them. The program allowed them to do this instead of making them work through the problem until they got the answer correct. At the end of the set of problems the program would show the students the correct answer(s) to the ones they got wrong, but they were the least bit interested with this information. At the time I thought I was helping my students practice their addition and subtraction facts, when in actuality, I was taking away their ability to be patient, diligent thinkers.
Kerri wrote: "At the time I thought I was helping my students practice their addition and subtraction facts, when in actuality, I was taking away their ability to be patient, diligent thinkers".
Kerri touched on an important note that I'm sure we have all pondered as we have all read through the Oppenheimer book (and the Postman book for that matter). As a matter of fact, as we both sat down to do this week's blog, we again went off on tangents challenging our positions on where we stood in regards to technology in the classroom. Have we used it inappropriately? Did we get taken in by all the hype and just become pawns in the big boys pond?
We have started to question whether we have even promoted technology in the manner it should be promoted. Have we used it in the most beneficial manner?
I believe we have...to a certain extent. Personally, I have myself grown over the years, becoming more selective as to how, when, and why I use it. I am more aware of seeing other teachers using it for the "bells and whistles" and not really for anything other than just a check of a block on their rating form. Am I where I should be when it comes to using technology in the classroom? No, but getting there.
After taking this class and thinking about what we have discussed in class I believe that I am not using most technology in an effective way in the classroom. The computers are used only at centers where the students fly through he programs not caring if their answers are right or wrong. However, according to the books we're reading first graders don't need to use the computer. I do agree with this. I think that they should learn the basic skills in first grade and not how to play games on the computer. I initially thoutht, as Kerri did, that the drill and practice would be beneficial to the students who needed the extra help. However, it has not. The technology that I do find beneficial is the video visualizer which helps the entire class be able to see what I am doing (high tech over-head projector). I really am having a hard time thinking how I could use the PC's in my room effectively with first grade students, especially since I only have 3 computers in my room.
I apologize for the spelling errors. I accidentally hit "publish" before I was finished. The technology got me that time. :)
After reading this book, and thinking about some ways that I've used technology in my own classroom, I've come to the realization that technology is used in many unhelpful ways in the classroom. I guess it this point I'm a little confused. I often hear that technology should not be something that teachers should use sparingly and as another subject on the side, and that it should be imbedded in our instruction. On the other hand, the technology that we use should be appropriate for the students and should only be used if it is more effective than teaching without the technology. The problem is that this book, and many others, present many ways that technology should not be used, and very few ways of how it should be used. If technology is supposed to be embedded in our instruction,
When will we be presented with examples of effective ways that technology has been used? With so little examples of effective technology use, is it something we should learn by trial and error with our students? When will we see more examples of what we should do with technology, instead of what we should not do?
In the original post, Kerri and Marcy quoted Oppenheimer speaking about the immense expectations placed upon teachers. "For decades, we have taken people who we hold responsible for the intellectual and moral development of our children, put them in chaotic, overcrowded institutions, robbed them of creative freedom and new opportunities for their own learning, imposed an ever-changing stream of rules and performance requirements that leave them exhausted and hopeless…" I completely agree with Oppenheimer's portrayal of the grueling and seemingly impossible conditions in which teachers work in the U.S. Many talented and enthusiastic people enter the teaching profession yet turn and run when faced with the innumerable challenges and intense pressure they are bombarded with from the beginning. With the burn out rate of teachers and the amount of schools not reaching standards, I find it unbelievable that there has not been a movement to improve teaching conditions, preparation and professional development.
Post a Comment