Author: Brigit

Kindergarten: The Changes from Play to Work

Posted on Author Brigit

Kindergarten: The Changes from Play to Work

From building houses out of blocks to being expected to know how to read, kindergarten has transformed in the last century. Kindergarten today is a “world away from the play-centered programs many adults remember” and “a more academically rigorous place” (Hardy 2009, 8). Friedrich Froebel, a German pedagogue, created kindergarten in 1837 and the concept arrived in the United States in the 1850s (Dombkowski 2001). Since kindergarten’s founding here in the U.S., it has developed into something Froebel did not intend. How do the purposes, learning goals and curriculum of kindergarten classrooms differ from the early 1900s to today, and why have they changed?

I argue that kindergarten has changed from encouraging play in the classrooms, to instead, encouraging work. When the kindergarten model was adopted in the United States, kindergarten’s purpose was to prepare children for their academic future and to promote their natural development. Today, the kindergarten model has shifted and promotes academic learning, as a result of our economy and the emphasis of education. Because of the state of our economy, education is seen as the key to success. Preschools are becoming a popular solution for childcare for families, and a helpful way to force academics into kindergarten. In addition to this, the federal government and parents are pressuring schools to start children’s academic future sooner. By pushing work into kindergarten, schools are gaining an extra year in instruction to pass the state tests, while the parents are getting their children ahead for their educational career.

Before kindergarten transformed to being academic-focused, kindergarten’s curriculum was based on the teacher’s discretion. The classrooms were play-focused because children learn the most through playing with their peers; in Froebel’s opinion, what children learn when they are playing is vital for their natural development and success later in school (Jeynes 2006). One important thing children learn through playing is self-discipline, such as learning to not hit one another if something doesn’t go their way (Curwood 2007). In addition to self-discipline, kindergarteners learn how to socialize when they play. Through their interactions, kindergarteners learn how to make friends, solve conflicts, empathize and rely on others for help (Jeynes 2006). Children also expand their knowledge and vocabulary by using their own language, asking questions, and using words that they’ve heard other people use (Hardy 2009). In games such as hide and go seek, children learn about following rules and respecting each other, and in games such as house, children learn how to take on different roles (Curwood 2007). In addition, kindergarteners learn how to “make sense of the world around them- and lay the critical groundwork for understanding words and numbers (Curwood 2007, 30). In play, children as well learn self-reliance, problem solving and spatial thinking (Curwood 2007, 30). One of the most important places play takes place is during recess. Through this break in their day, they can let their mind be free and be creative in the games they play. Running around for children is important for them to stay healthy and those “children who are physically active are more likely to do well academically” (Jeynes 2006, 1940).  Play, to scholars and to Froebel, is necessary for children at this age so they can develop naturally and be able to succeed in school.

Although what kindergarteners learn through play is most important, what they learn in the classroom is also crucial. While children are taught how to write, color within the lines, paint, and cut with scissors, they additionally learn how to interact with people older than them (Hatch 1988). In their interactions with their teachers, children learn the “importance of positive social reinforcement, emotional support, modeling, identification and expectations” (Jeynes 2006, 1943). They also learn how to be patient, respect authority, follow directions and obey classroom rules (Jeynes 2006). Through classroom instruction and interactions with their teachers, children are learning lessons that will help them later on in their schooling.

The reason why Froebel emphasized play in kindergarten was because children would then develop naturally and build self-confidence for their academic futures. Kindergarten, to him, is viewed as a year to prepare children, especially since children at this age are quite immature to deal with the stress of academics (Jeynes 2006, 1940). Since many children come knowing different things, if kindergarten is work-focused, children who are not ready for academics could be “damaged all through their education” (Hatch 1988, 146). According to Froebel, the reason for this is because children this age need to develop self-confidence before they really start learning. In a work-focused kindergarten, children will not be gaining self-confidence like they would be in a play-focused kindergarten (Hatch 1988).  If academics are pressured too much, and too early, frustration in these children could end up leading to academic failure throughout schooling (Dombkowski 2001). Other than Froebel, scholars and researchers also support a play-like kindergarten; in their opinions, the standards of academic kindergarten may be “developmentally inappropriate” for children this age (Hardy 2009, 8).  For children to have academic success, “they must be physiologically, psychologically and intellectually ‘ready’”, which many of these children are not (Dombkowski 2001, 533). Additionally, experts are skeptical of an academic kindergarten because, in their eyes, the earlier academics are pressured, the earlier these children lose their childhoods (Dombkowski 2001, 542).  Specialists believe children at this age “should explore, play, experience the joys of learning, and understand the basics of cognitive skills” (Jeynes 2006, 1945). While the purpose of the traditional model of kindergarten was to encourage children’s “natural desire to learn and explore” it nevertheless has become academically focused (Jeynes 2006, 1946).

From having a simple curriculum, kindergarten has changed to a complex curriculum with standards that need to be met. While only 15 percent of kindergarteners were reading a decade ago, today “90 percent of kindergarteners passed an end-of-year reading test” in Maryland’s Montgomery County (Curwood 2007, 30). The measures have dramatically changed; kindergarteners must be able to do things such as count to 100, predict, estimate, “match all consonant and short-vowel sounds to appropriate letters” and “use concrete objects to determine the answers to addition and subtraction problems” (Russell 2011, 253-6).  In places like California, kindergarteners are expected to master 195 skills before first grade, and other states are following the same trends (Russell 2011, 253). Kindergarten is seen as the new first grade because many of the standards have moved from first grade into kindergarten (Curwood 2007). But how is this beneficial for children this age?

In some people’s opinions, having kindergarten be work-focused helps them get ahead later on. Kindergarteners will be able to read, know how to take tests, and know crucial math and literacy skills for the testing that counts in fourth grade. Whereas some argue that kindergartners aren’t ready for these pressures of academics, others argue that they are; studies have been done that say early learning is beneficial and that starting at this age is the right time to learn how to read (Curwood 2007, 30).

While people argue between a play-focused and work-focused kindergarten, it nevertheless has changed as a result to the emphasis of education and the state of the economy in our society. More families have both parents work, which has caused preschools to become more common and a chosen choice of childcare. As the number of children in preschool, and the number of preschools increase, children are being exposed to skills that they would have typically learned in the traditional model of kindergarten, such as learning how to use scissors or write (Hatch 1988, 147). Preschoolers are even learning how to write their alphabet and how to read, therefore, making it unnecessary for kindergarten to remain play-focused and forced to be academically focused (Hardy 2009, 8). By putting their children in preschools, parents are helping their children’s academic future; it has been reported that “children who attend quality preschools score higher on kindergarten readiness screening tests” and “school performance continues to remain higher for those students who attended preschool” (Plevyak, 2002, 25). School is the way to success in our economy; therefore, by starting academics earlier, children are getting ahead. Preschool has created this push for academics to start in kindergarten, which will help them later on when it comes to competition for admission into colleges and getting jobs.

As kindergarten is feeling pressure from preschools to be academic, it is also feeling pressure from standardize testing. With an emphasis of education in our society, testing has become increasingly common. Between 1963 and 1980, SAT scores declined, which pushed the government to create the “back to basics” movement in 1981. This movement emphasized the importance of reading and mathematics so the SAT scores would be raised (Jeynes 2006, 1950).  In 1993, testing began in the elementary schools after Clinton“called for voluntary nationwide standardized reading tests for fourth graders and math tests in eighth grade” (Jeynes 2006, 1951). In 2001, George W. Bush continued Clinton’s work by creating the No Child Left Behind” act, “which warns schools that incessant failure to give adequate instruction will result in the loss of federal funding” (Jeynes 2006, 1951). Therefore, if schools did not meet the state standards, they would lose money.

Because of No Child Left Behind, testing is starting earlier to keep up with the state standards and therefore pushing academics into kindergarten. Although official testing begins in fourth grades, students start to take practice tests in third grade. With starting a year younger, there’s more pressure in the younger grades for the students to be ready. The federal government is stressing “that schools be accountable and guarantee that they offer quality education.” Since schools are scared that they will lose money, they are pushing children to be more knowledgeable at younger ages (Jeynes 2006, 1939). According to Jen Scott Curwood, “by beginning the first grade reading curriculum in kindergarten, schools have effectively gained an extra year of instruction (Curwood 2007, 30). Because there’s such an emphasis on schools preforming well on tests, there is more competition between schools to see who is better, and between students to see who is better (Jeynes 2006, 1946).

By the federal government pressuring schools to be accountable, they are emphasizing the importance of education in our society. The main reason why the federal government is pushing for schools to be held responsible is because education is the key to success. In our economy, to be successful you must have an education, and the more education you have, the better you will do. Thus, by starting academic learning in kindergarten, children are becoming more knowledgeable earlier and thus getting ahead. However, schools are not only feeling pressure from the federal government to start school earlier; they are feeling pressure from the parents too.

With the stance of our economy, parents want to do anything and everything for their children to be smarter and better than everyone else. There is competition to be the best because being successful in school will help with admissions into colleges and jobs after college. Parents worry about their children’s future, especially since it is so difficult today to find jobs. Because education is seen as the way to a promising future, mother’s of kindergartners are “”demanding that their five-year-olds be taught to read”” (Russell 2011, 250). Other parents are delaying kindergarteners by keeping them in preschool a year longer; these parents do not feel that their children are ready for academics and by holding them back, they hope it will increase “future scholastic competitiveness” (Russell 2011, 250). In addition to this, upper class parents believe that by starting their children at younger ages, their children will have more of an advantage ““in a race to Harvard,” a reference to starting early in preparation for elite university admissions” (Russell 2011, 250). While parents find it important for their children to be children, they much rather “see results from educational expenditures” and therefore “a rise in test scores” (Dombkowski 2001, 545). Parents will do whatever it takes for their children to be ahead, especially so they’ll have an easier time in their futures.

Kindergarten in the last century has transformed and this is because of our economy and the emphasis of education. Kindergarten was developed to help children get ready for their futures in school, but has progressed into being the start of their academic future. There are expectations and standards to meet so kindergarteners can go onto the first grade. Because many families have two parents working today, preschool has become more common and the chosen childcare option. By putting children in preschool, parents are emphasizing the importance of education, and forcing kindergarten to shift to a work-like curriculum since much of preschool is play-like. In addition to this, standardize testing and pressures from parents have pushed kindergarten to become work-like. In conclusion, because of the pressures from the economy and the emphasis of education in our society, kindergarten has transformed from encouraging children’s natural development, to encouraging academic learning.

Sources:

Curwood, Jen Scott. “What Happened to Kindergarten?” Instructor 117, no. 1 (2007):

28–32.

Dombkowski, Kristen. “Will the Real Kindergarten Please Stand up?: Defining and

Redefining the Twentieth-century US Kindergarten.” History of Education 30,

no. 6 (November 2001): 527–545.

Hardy, Lawrence. “Q & A with Edward Miller, on the Importance of Play”, November

2009.

Hatch, J. Amos, and Freeman, Evelyn B.“Who’s Pushing Whom? Stress and

Kindergarten.” Phi Delta Kappan 70 (October 1988): 145–147.

Jeynes, William H. “Standardized Tests and Froebel’s Original Kindergarten Model.”

Teachers College Record 108, no. 10 (October 2, 2006): 1937–1959.

Plevyak, Linda H., and Kathy Morris. “Why Is Kindergarten an Endangered Species?”

Education Digest 67, no. 7 (March 2002): 23–26.

Russell, Jennifer Lin. “From Child’s Garden to Academic Press: The Role of Shifting

Institutional Logics in Redefining Kindergarten Education.” American Educational Research Journal 48, no. 2 (April 2011): 236–267.

Kindergarten: The Changes from Play to Work

Posted on Author Brigit

Question: “In the United States, how do the learning goals and curriculum for kindergarten classrooms differ from it’s adoption in the early 1900s to today? And why have they changed?

Thesis:

  • In the early 1900s kindergarten’s curriculum encouraged play and natural development
  • Reason: kids need a year to prepare for school, not ready for academic pressures
  • Today, kindergarten’s curriculum encourages academic learning
  • Reasons for the change: preschool has adopted the play-like curriculum, and because of the pressures from standardize testing and parents, kindergarten’s role has shifted to being academic-based instead

Sources:

Jen Scott Curwood: What Happened To Kindergarten

  • why original model was implemented
  • how kindergarten has changed
  • why kindergarten has changed
  • Interesting fact: a decade ago, only 15% of kindergartens could read. today in a county in Maryland, 90% of kindergartens could read

4

Kindergarten- Brigit Rioual

Posted on Author Brigit

Brigit Rioual

Final Paper for Ed 300

April 19th, 2012

With today’s economy, it’s rare to see the traditional stay at home mom. Parents today are forced to both have jobs so they can keep their home and take care of their children. To survive and be successful in today’s economy, education is necessary and the more education you have, the more successful you will be. While both parents are busy working, children are increasingly putting their children into preschool than ever before (Hatch and Freeman 1988). Since preschools are becoming more readily available, educators are questioning kindergarten and it’s purpose. If going to preschool is becoming so common, should kindergarten be the start of children’s academic education? Or, should kindergarten remain non-academic?

While educators, scholars, and researchers all have different viewpoints of what the purpose of kindergarten is, it nevertheless has changed since it’s founding in 1837. Friedrich Froebel, a German pedagogue, developed kindergarten for the purpose that children grow, like a garden, and “become unified with God and ultimately with each other” (Jeynes 2006, 1937). Froebel emphasized the importance of children of this age, through kindergarten, to develop their personality, disciple and social skills that would help them become successful in school and their society (Jeynes 2006, 1937-8). But, to develop in all of those ways, play was necessary to Froebel, and to other educational psychologists of today (Jeynes 2006, 1940). The purpose of kindergarten was for natural child development and for them to prepare for their academic futures, because “Froebel believed that 4- and 5-year-old children were still quite immature” (Jeynes 2006, 1940).

However, since this kindergarten model was adapted in the United States in the late 1800’s, the kindergarten of today has changed dramatically. From being very play focused, kindergarten has become more academic-focused. Although many think kindergarten has changed for many different reasons, I argue that kindergarten has changed because the state of our economy and the strong emphasis on education. Because of the state of our economy, both parents work and send their children to preschool where their children predominately play. Moreover, the state of our economy has created a strong emphasis of education. To keep up with the global economy and competition for colleges and jobs one day, states are using standardizing testing to assess whether schools are making progress and having success. With these tests comes pressure from parents, teachers and administrators for the kids to get ahead and do well; therefore, academia has been pushed into kindergarten. The earlier you start, the better you are, is the common belief.

Although I am comparing Froebel’s model to today’s kindergarten, I think it is important to touch upon three important time periods that sought for change in education through the government, which brought about standardizing testing and academic-focused kindergarten.  In 1962-1963, the Supreme Court decided that prayer and reading the bible in school was unconstitutional, and demanded the removal. Because the bible is very moral based, this significant change hindered Froebel’s model of kindergarten and “created a significant hole in the kindergarten curriculum” (Jeynes 2006, 1949). A few decades later in 1981, the “back to basics” movement became popular. Since there was a decline in academics, especially SAT scores between 1963-1980, the importance of reading and mathematics were now more emphasized in the schools. By teaching more math and reading, it was thought that scores, such as SATs, would improve (Jeynes 2006, 1950). After this movement came what is still impacting us today. More and more Americans became increasingly concerned about the academic achievement gap between urban and suburban students. In response to this concern, President Clinton in 1993 “called for voluntary nationwide standardized reading tests for fourth graders and math tests in eighth grade” (Jeynes 2006, 1951). Once George W. Bush was in office, he continued Clinton’s work by creating No Child Left Behind “which warns schools that incessant failure to give adequate instruction will result in the loss of federal funding” (Jeynes 2006, 1951), i.e. if schools did not meet the state standards, then they would lose money.

Since No Child Left Behind has been enacted, schools have felt the pressure of losing their federal money. To keep up with the state standards, testing is starting earlier, and now being pushed into kindergarten. Although testing now begins in fourth grade in public schools, they do practice tests in third grade that don’t technically count. With starting a year younger, there’s more pressure in the younger grades for the students to be ready. In an article, Who’s Pushing Whom? Stress and Kindergarten, the authors Freeman and Hatch both were not surprised that with the overwhelming pressure to do well on these tests, the first grade skills are being pushed into kindergarten (Hatch and Freeman 1988, 145). Although this article was published in 1988, even in 2011, according to Jennifer Russell, media sees kindergarten as “the new first grade” (Russell 2011, 237).  Kindergarten has transformed from learning how to write, paint, use scissors, glue, and play to being expected to be able to count to 100 and be able to read before first grade (Russell, 2011, 255-6). Kindergartners now even have nightly homework (Curwood 2007, 28). What is peculiar about this sudden fast-change of academics in kindergarten is that a decade ago, only “15 percent of kindergarteners were reading” while now in Maryland’s Montgomery County, which has full day kindergarten, “90 percent of kindergarteners passed an end-of-year reading test” (Curwood 2007, 30). In addition, before there was no set curriculum for kindergarten, it was based on more of the teacher’s discretion; in contrast, today, kindergarteners must pass certain standards to go onto first grade, such as being able to “match all consonant and short-vowel sounds to appropriate letters” and “use concrete objects to determine the answers to addition and subtraction problems” (Russell 2011, 253). In all, kindergarteners are expected to master 195 skills before first grade and although this example is in California, other states are following the same sort of standards (Russell 2011, 253). Ever since the pass of No Child Left Behind, children are pressured by the schools to learn at younger ages and move further away from the traditional model of kindergarten.

However, the schools are not the only ones pushing these children to be learning at younger ages; the parents are too. With the stance of our economy, parents want to do anything and everything for their children to be ahead and to be better than everyone else. There is competition to be the best because being successful in school will help getting into colleges and later with jobs. With the pressure to achieve, mother’s of kindergartners are “”demanding that their five-year-olds be taught to read”” (Russell 2011, 250). Other parents are delaying their children starting in kindergarten, keeping them in preschool a year longer because they do not feel that their children are ready for the academics and hope that by holding them back, it will increase “future scholastic competitiveness” (Russell 20011, 250). In addition to this, upper class parents believe that by starting their children at younger ages, their children will have more of an advantage ““in a race to Harvard,” a reference to starting early in preparation for elite university admissions” (Russell 2011, 250).

Research proposal on changes in kindergarten

Posted on Author Brigit

Brigit Rioual

Question: In the United States, how has the curriculum and expectations of kindergartners changed since the early 1900s? Why have these changes occurred?

Relevance: My research question is relevant to Ed 300 because the changes in kindergarten are very important to education and education reform. I remember kindergarten being very much play and not very much work. I don’t ever remember having homework, but I do remember learning basic spelling words. However, today, kindergarten is much different than 15 years ago when I was there. Kindergarteners are now being pressured to learn more material than they typically would, so they are ready for standardized testing in a few years. I’m interested in looking at the original intentions of creating kindergarten and how and why kindergarten has went from being mostly play, to being mostly work.

Research Strategy: I first went to the Trinity library webpage and went to Trinity Online Resources. I then went to Educational Studies, and clicked on Educational Full-Text. I first searched changes in kindergarten, and got a couple of articles. I then searched kindergarten AND changes AND curriculum and got two other articles. One of my articles gave me the idea to look at play, so I then searched kindergarten AND play AND curriculum. I then tried history AND kindergarten. I also went through the Hartford Courant databases and looking at how kindergarten has developed and changed in Connecticut for some specific examples.

Primary Sources:

Kindergarten schools. (1878, Oct 05). Hartford Daily Courant (1840-1887), pp. 2-2.

This source discusses kindergarten in St. Louis and the advantages it would have to Connecticut.

The free kindergarten. (1884, Mar 31). Hartford Daily Courant (1840-1887), pp. 2-2.

The first meeting in Connecticut after a year of starting kindergarten discussing the positives and negatives.

 

Secondary Sources:

Russell, Jennifer Lin. “From Child’s Garden to Academic Press: The Role of Shifting Institutional Logics in Redefining Kindergarten Education.” American Educational Research Journal 48, no. 2 (April 2011): 236–267.

This source discusses how kindergarten has changed historically from once being a transition year to being an important beginning of formal academics. This is important to my question because it addresses the changes in what kindergarteners are expected and how the curriculum has changed.

Hatch, J. Amos, and Evelyn B. Freeman. “Who’s Pushing Whom? Stress and Kindergarten.” Phi Delta Kappan 70 (October 1988): 145–147.

This source is interesting because it discusses stress on kindergartens in the change from relaxed curriculum to a structured academic curriculum. There is a fear that children are being pushed too early by parents and by society. This article seems as if it will give me a different outlook on why kindergarten has changed based on a psychological view point but also give me some background information on why parents and society are pushing children so young.

Miller, Edward, and Joan Almon. “Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School.”Education Digest 75, no. 1 (2009): 42–45.

This article proposes that kindergarten is in trouble because they are being pressured by tests in math and reading and children need to go back to being able to play. They discuss the trouble pressuring the children to preform well on tests at such a young age and propose ways to fix kindergarten. They discuss the before and now also.

Curwood, Jen Scott. “What Happened to Kindergarten?” Instructor 117, no. 1 (2007): 28-32.

This source discusses how kindergarten has changed based on academic pressures of the 21st century and what has caused this change from kindergarten being more relaxed. They argue that academic pressures have a negative effect on kindergarten and they state what teachers can do to help their students.

Plevyak, Linda H., and Kathy Morris. “Why Is Kindergarten an Endangered Species?” Education Digest 67, no. 7 (March 2002): 23–26.

This source examines kindergarten today, being very much academic based and less play. Too many hours are being spent doing math and reading than before. It also discusses the pressures this is putting on their children, and on themselves. This article proposes that educators need to have more information on the development of children in kindergarten to make changes to the curriculum of kindergarten.

Hardy, Lawrence. “Q & A with Edward Miller, on the Importance of Play”, November 2009.

This Q&A discusses traditional kindergarten to todays kindergarten and how this change happened.

Jeynes, William H. “Standardized Tests and Froebel’s Original Kindergarten Model.” Teachers College Record 108, no. 10 (October 2, 2006): 1937–1959.

This discusses policies and how kindergarten has changed through the last couple of years. This is much more history based. This article discusses the found of kindergarten, his model, and how that has changed and developed since then.

“Friedrich Froebel: Founder, First Kindergarten”, September 2000.

A biography on Friedrich Froebel and his intentions through the creation of kindergarten.

Nawrotzki, Kristen D. “‘Like Sending Coals to Newcastle:’ Impressions from and of the Anglo-American Kindergarten Movements.” Paedagogica Historica 43, no. 2 (April 2007): 223–233.

History of Kindergarten in the US and Britain

Dombkowski, Kristen. “Will the Real Kindergarten Please Stand up?: Defining and Redefining the Twentieth-century US Kindergarten.” History of Education 30, no. 6 (November 2001): 527–545.

History of kindergarten in the US.

Proposed Ideas of Change for Connecticut

Posted on Author Brigit

HARTFORD– On February 27th, CT Association for Human Services held a public forum and panel at the State Capital about the new report released on “Opportunity in Connecticut: The Impact of Race, Poverty and Education on Family Economic Success.” Jude Carroll, CT Kids Count Director, introduced by Jim Horan, CAHS Executive Director, began the discussion by emphasizing the importance of expanding the discussion of education reform and the achievement gap throughout the state. The report focuses on the purpose of opportunity in Connecticut, underlying causes of CT’s achievement gap, and what we should do to fix the opportunity structure based on race, poverty and education. Following Jude Carroll’s presentation, four panelists from four different organizations went over the concepts within the report and their own ideals that they work towards. While the presentation of the report set the stage for the day’s discussion and was very crucial, what was most interesting was the views of the panelists.

Job Opportunity in Connecticut

Whereas Jude Carroll emphasized the importance of opening the discussion of education and opportunities within the state, Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Policy Fellow of CT Voices for Children, stressed the future of our state in regards to job opportunities. Rodriguez highlighted that Connecticut has become a retirement state and as 2020 approaches, those working between 20-64 will begin to decrease. Connecticut will, and already has, seen a shift in higher income workers to low income workers. There has been a social isolation throughout the state where suburbs are becoming increasingly whiter. Rodriguez suggests that we need to decrease high school dropouts and reduce costs of post-secondary education. In addition, Rodriguez emphasizes the importance of Connecticut re-establishing a middle class through manufacturing jobs. Through post-secondary education, if costs are reduced and money was invested in skill training, manufacturing jobs would be more accessible and help raise the middle class. Valerie Shultz- Wilson, President and CEO of Urban League of Southern CT focused on many of the same ideas that Rodriguez did, but proposed the idea of the state partnering with corporations to give people jobs and to give training credentials to those who need jobs. In a conversation between Shultz- Wilson and Rodriguez, both discussed the fact that there are not enough jobs in Connecticut to keep the talented in the state, which leaves us with low skill workers. Connecticut needs to increase jobs and the cost of living needs to decrease to keep those talented citizens.

Importance of Housing on Opportunity

Rodriguez and Shultz- Wilson emphasized job opportunities within our state and the gap between low and high-income job opportunities, but another concept discussed was the importance of housing on opportunity. Erin Boggs, Deputy Director of CT Fair Housing Center, highlighted the opportunity map on page five of the report. Geography within the state is very important for what kind of education students will be receiving and what opportunities they will be given. Boggs states that what resources are available should not depend on where you live; all resources should be available to all people. Boggs proposes putting subsidizing housing in areas with thriving schools to decrease the achievement gap. Today, subsidizing housing is typically put in low-income areas, with low achievement rates and a lack of resources, but just because they are poor should not force them to live in poor environments. If they are put in poor environments, they are unlikely to escape poverty, but by putting poor families in striving environments with an abundance of resources, students can escape poverty and be high achieving too. George Coleman, Former Commissioner of the Connecticut State of Department, addresses the importance of desegregation in our towns too because as long as areas are segregated, the gap will not diminish. Coleman explains that middle-income areas create advantages to help children foster prosperity and gives them what they need to achieve, while low-income areas do not do this. In a later conversation between Boggs and Coleman, Coleman gave a valid point: low-income areas actually spend more per student because the students are farther behind because of poverty and because those areas are low-income, the schools lack resources. But if the state adopts the ideals proposed by Boggs, the achievement gap will lessen and the state will have more talent, and if the state provides more jobs, proposed by Rodriguez, in return, the state will prosper economically and racially.

In conclusion: Wrapping up the discussion

The report that set the stage of this discussion brought about many interesting and different concepts to change opportunity in Connecticut in relation to race, poverty and education. Moderator Elsa Núñez, President of Eastern Connecticut State College, ended the discussion with her own heartbreaking story. About 7 years ago Núñez was looking for an apartment in Connecticut and left a message to the owners with her interest in the apartment. Núñez unfortunately received a phone call back from the owner saying that Ms. Núñez would not be able to afford the apartment because it was very expensive and just redone. Núñez was a victim of racialization and her story shows that racial disparities are not fixed and there is so much more to do. Connecticut has the largest achievement gap of any state, and for anything to change, as Núñez emphasized in her opening speech, we must look at race, poverty and education simultaneously. While this discussion was interesting and brought up many great points and ideas to change opportunity in Connecticut, it was merely a conversation about change and no plan was implemented. However, the discussion is important and is the first step for change in Connecticut.

Avoiding Plagiarism- Brigit Rioual

Posted on Author Brigit

Example 1: Plagiarize the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word.

A teacher who gets a particular ranking in year one is likely to get a different ranking the next year. There will always be instability in these rankings, some of which will reflect “real” performance changes.

Example 2: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, without copying it word-for-word.

But it is hard to trust any performance rating if the chances of getting the similar rating next year are no better than tossing a coin.

Example 3: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, and include a citation. Even though you cited it, paraphrasing too closely is still plagiarism.

A teacher that who gets a certain ranking in one year is likely to get a different ranking the following year (Ravitch, 270-1).

Example 4: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, and include a citation to the original source.

In the following year, a teacher could get a different ranking than the ranking they received the year before (Ravitch, 270-1).

Example 5: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, add a direct quote, and include a citation to the original source.

In the following year, a teacher could get a different ranking than the ranking they received the year before. It is hard to rely on these rankings because only some “will reflect “real” performance changes” (Ravitch, 270-1).

Waiting for “Superman”

Posted on Author Brigit

Waiting for “Superman”

In 2010, Waiting for “Superman” was released. The filmmaker, David Guggenheim and his team followed five children and their families throughout the country as they waited for the lottery to go to their chosen charter schools, to escape “dropout factories” aka, public schools. The documentary presents reformers and educators throughout the country who believe that quality teachers are what will make the difference and save education.

This is a very short synopsis of the movie, and to many critics, the message is flawed. In this film, Waiting for “Superman” Guggenheim, the filmmaker, through the chosen families and the facts and figures he shows, gives a one sided story of educational reforms in the last decade. Based on his opinion, and the educators and reformers he interviews, to have great schools, you need great teachers, and then everything will fall into place. Through his opinions, he persuades the audience that bad teachers and unions are the problem, and this is what needs to change to get quality schools again.

While watching the film, hard facts and figures are constantly being presented. Since 1971, educational spending per student has almost doubled, yet the reading and math scores since then have remained about the same. By picking and choosing facts such as these, Guggenheim is hooking the reader and persuading them that this is just one of the many issues in education today that he believes needs to be fixed. In addition, in Illinois, only 1 in 2500 teachers get fired, however, 1 in 57 doctors have lost their medical license. By presenting these figures, Guggenheim is showing the problem with unions and how they are preventing quality teachers and high performances from the students, one of Guggenheim’s arguments throughout the film. Moreover, Guggenheim wants to present the reality of the educational system and how harsh it is.

Besides the facts and figures presented in the film, Guggenheim has chosen five students throughout the country who have high aspirations for themselves and are applying to charter schools. The families of the students are struggling to find their children better schools so they can have better opportunities while some of the students are also struggling in school at the same time. One of the students, Francisco, is a great example of Guggenheim’s argument that teachers are what matter. Francisco’s mother is constantly being shown writing letters to his teacher and making calls, however, his mother never hears back from his teacher. She has been told by teachers her son needs help in reading, but when she takes him to a private tutor, they say he is doing well. Another student, Emily, although from a wealthy background unlike the other four students, has been placed into the lower tracking. Tracking supports Guggenheim’s argument that teachers matter because lower tracking means teachers have lesser expectations from their students and therefore do not have to try to teach as hard as other teachers who teach in high tracking classes.

In addition to the five students, Geoffery Canada and Michelle Rhee, two reformers, are presented in this film and because there is such a large emphasis on them both, it persuades the audience to listen to their ideals and believe in their strategies to reform schools. Canada and Rhee both believe in having quality teachers, and Rhee even fired a high number of teachers and principals in DC to help raise the quality of the schools and hire more “competent” teachers.

Through showing the facts, and the families, Guggenheim persuades the audience and shows his intended goals for the film. The story that the filmmaker wanted to show was that the education of the U.S is in jeopardy. The facts show how money is being spent poorly, and how few teachers get fired because of tenure. The families show you how difficult it is to change schools, and how important it is for their children to have great teachers. Guggenheim wanted to make this documentary because he realized how lucky he was to be able to have the free choice of sending his children to whatever schools he wanted them to go to. He wanted to learn what happens to those families that have no choice, because every child deserves a great education. Guggenheim wanted to get across reformers’ beliefs, such as Rhee and Canada, that teachers are what will change the system (waitingforsuperman.com, 2010).

One scene that I thought was particularly important to helping Guggenheim support his argument was when he showed the clip from the Simpsons. The teacher announces that she just was given tenure; therefore, she would sit at her desk and read a magazine while a student taught the class instead. She did this because she is protected now by tenure, and therefore doesn’t need to try. I thought this was very important to the film because it showed Guggenheim and the reformer’s beliefs that teachers need to be constantly assessed and be high performing. However, tenure blocks the ability to fire low performing teachers, and some teachers begin to become low performing because tenure protects them. Therefore, this particular teacher would now be difficult to fire.

Although Guggenheim realizes there is a problem with the system, the film is highly criticized. Gerald Tirozzi in Education Digest criticizes the chosen students in the film because they have the importance of education reinforced in their homes. But, Tirozzi asks, “What of the students who don’t have that advantage? They don’t appear in the film” (Tirozzi, 2010). Tirozzi also criticizes the fact that Guggenheim shows all of these students escaping public schools to go to charter schools, yet Guggenheim’s states that he is not pro-charter. In addition, Tirozzi notes that although the depiction of the film is that charter schools are the answer, that is not so and there are high performing public schools all throughout the country, even in poor, urban areas. In addition, Tirozzi discusses that public schools are being avoided in this film, while most of the nations students go there. Teachers, unions and charter schools are not the only answer. (Tirozzi, 2010).

Another critic of this film, Elizabeth Dutro, discusses Canada and his own program, Harlem Children’s Zone, which provides students with, for example, free medical, dental, and parenting sessions. By providing these things at schools, Canada is showing that “schools are only one key ingredient in a much larger mix of social services necessary to mitigate the impact of multi-generational poverty in some urban neighborhoods” (Dutro, 2011). In addition, she argues that poverty is virtually ignored throughout this film and the film “never addresses anti-poverty measures as potential solutions” This movie ignores the structure of poverty and it’s impact on education. Finally, “the solutions offered by the film are simplified, ignore research evidence, and are too often built on false assumptions that undermine the need to examine the systemic inequities and consequential reforms and policies that surround schooling in the United States” (Dutro, 2011).

Diane Ravitch, another critic of Waiting for “Superman” and an educational reformer and educator, points out the flaws in her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System. To Ravitch, Guggenheim and his film left out important facts. For one, “50 percent of those who enter teaching leave within five years” therefore showing that it is not impossible to fire teacher (Ravitch, 2010, 255). Tenure simply grants the “right to a hearing before he or she may be terminated” (Ravitch, 2010, 255). Ravitch also discusses the fact that spending has increased per student, but it is because more spending has gone to special education services (Ravitch, 2010, 256).

Both Tirozzi, Dutro and Ravitch discuss what was left out in this film and how Guggenheim simply ignored these facts to make his argument stronger and more persuasive. By ignoring students with little reinforcement at home, by ignoring high performing public schools in poor areas, by ignoring the structure of poverty and the structure of social services, by ignoring special education, by ignoring the problems with standardized testing, by ignoring social class, Guggenheim can make his argument that teachers and unions are what need to be fixed to make better schools. Guggenheim himself has chosen private schools for his own children, and Guggenheim has chosen to follow five children who are applying to charter schools, yet Guggenheim ignores all of the children who don’t apply to charter schools, and ignores all of the children who remain in public schools and do well. This movie attracted families who are trying to escape public schooling, however, pubic schools accept anyone and everyone, while charter schools don’t. And when children no longer can attend charter schools, they are back to public schooling. Guggenheim ignores all of this throughout this film and makes it seem, even if it was not intended, as if charter schools are the answer to find better quality teachers since public schools are linked to unions. However, public schooling is the foundation of education in America and will always accept all types of students.

Throughout this film, Guggenheim persuades his audience that bad schools and unions are the problem with America’s education by ignoring the other problems with education previously discussed. His chosen students and reformers show a basic solution to a larger problem of education. However, through those students and reformers, Guggenheim is successful at presenting and persuading his argument that to have great schools, we must have great teachers.

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing
And Choice are Undermining Education. New York: Basic, 2010. Print.

Tirozzi, G. N. (2010). Is superman the conversation we need? The
Education Digest, 76(4), 23-25.http://search.proquest.com/docview/819517118?accountid=14405

Dutro, E. (2011). Review of “waiting for superman”.National Education
Policy Center. School of Education 249 UCB University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309. http://nepc.colorado.edu. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/860366018?accountid=14405

Davis Guggenheim. Waiting for “Superman.” Video documentary,
2010. http://www.waitingforsuperman.com.