When we discussed this topic on Thursday, I had to really take some time to think about it before I blogged my thoughts.  I tend to agree with Teresa, Caren, and several others who mentioned positive discipline and Love and Logic.  I always seemed to use positive reinforcement tactics in my classroom since the beginning of my career with great success.  However, I feel that no amount of positive reinforcement can work if a child is bored–as Jacqueline mentioned.  One of the things I told my student teacher when she arrived and we began planning is “if the you’re bored, the students are more than likely bored”.  This is a philosophy I developed in my first year of teaching.  The things the grade level did my first year of teaching were boring without any change or refreshing ideas.  I was new to the profession and it was hard for me to “go against the grain” so to speak but every day seemed the same.  I felt like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day.  I was bored out of my mind and I vowed never to teach that way again.  The next year and every year since I try and do something new.  I also create a tentative schedule at the beginning of the year and alter it as needed based on my class and their needs.  For example, last year’s class learned better in a whole group situation where they could interact with all of their peers more frequently.  This year’s class is completely different.  With so many ELL students in my classroom, small group learning fits them best.  I honestly can say that I haven’t had many major behavior problems as long as I keep the students actively engaged at all times.  This is EXTREMELY hard for me with kindergarten children, but I spend all day constantly moving and engaging the students.  I think that yes, as Cindy said the students should behavior appropriately because those are the expectations you set up from day one.  But I still feel that if you reward the positive behavior, not all the time but some of the time, it creates a goal for the students worth working towards.  I mean who doesn’t like working for a reward even if the expectation is there.  For example, the expectation for me (made by my husband) is that I am supposed to complete this Ed.S program with good grades and a lot of knowledge that I can take back and apply in my classroom…but I sure am looking forward to the reward awaiting me in June if and when I’m finished (7-Day Cruise)!

February 11, 2008

As I read this article I was thinking of my experiences with teaching.  While still young in the profession having only taught seven years, I still believe that I’ve had a lot of experience.  I have taught only kindergarten and I have been at three different schools in two different counties (Clayton and Henry) since beginning my career in 2001.  I began my career with a principal who allowed those of us in kindergarten to teach the way we saw best fit for the students.  (I cannot speak for other grade levels.)  We were to use the TE and supplemental materials as we saw fit.  I believe at that time the only program we were required to use was the Saxon Phonics Program.  The next school I was at was pretty much the same way with a different principal.  Both of these schools were in Clayton County.  Both were Title One schools as well.  I made the switch to Henry County when Clayton County schools were in jeopardy of losing accreditation.  I have now been at SES for four years.  The switch was had its positives, but it also had its negatives as well.  I am very much a developmental teacher.  The school I am currently at I feel is not developmental.  Instead there is an extreme push for academics beginning in kindergarten and up.  We are a title one school and AYP is a constant concern for us.  Teachers in grades first through third (we are only a K-3 school) are pushed to “teach to the test” or at least the material they think will be on the test.  As I read what Goodman wrote about teachers forming their own “knowledge base to free themselves from textbooks and standardized tests” (p.1) I felt happy to see that someone shared my viewpoint.  I mean shouldn’t we focus on individual needs and not so much on standardized tests.  Isn’t that what we were all taught in school?  I mean I remember when I was in undergrad I was so excited at the thought of teaching students based on their needs.  I don’t think I was ready for the shock of the “real world” expectations put on teachers.  I wonder what it would take to get us back to (or even at) the point where we as educators can make decisions for individual students based on classroom assessments and teacher observations and stop focusing on standardized tests.  Maybe we should just band together and form our own school…what do you think?

February 11, 2008

“Instead of learning rules and formulas, her son and his classmates were presented with problems and expected to invent their own ways of solving them.  “He was very frustrated,” McDaniel says.  “I’d say, ‘Look in the book, it will explain.’  He’d say, ‘Mom, there is not a book.” 

I took this quote from the excerpt on p.123 where Madalyn McDaniel was describing The Interactive Mathematics Program she signed her son up for.  She felt betrayed that the students were supposed to ‘think’ for themselves and devise solutions to mathematical equations on their own.  Isn’t that what we as educators are trying so hard to do now?  I think that society in general just has this mindset that teachers are there to give answers and that is how the students are supposed to learn because that is how they learned as a child.  I remember learning that way as well.  My teachers would sit at a stool in the front of the room, the desks all in neat little rows, teaching from the text about American History or Life Science.  There were correct and incorrect answers with no in between.  No hands on and no thinking for ourselves.  The questions at the end of each chapter were not based on comprehension but fact recall instead.  I can see how some people are comfortable with this type of learning, but isn’t that what Gatto called “Confusion” in his book Dumbing Us Down.  In our group discussion, I spoke about how when I read this in chapter one I agreed with Gatto in that at times we as teachers “teach confusion”.  It is impossible to make a connection with EVERYTHING that we teach.  Thus we teach some things in isolation where students never make that “real life” connection that they sometimes need to make sense of the material.  For example, I teach space in kindergarten as we talk about gravity and motion.  Can I ever make a “real life” connection with space?  Probably not.  I can show video, share non-fiction texts, but I can never bring in the real life connection that they might need.

February 4, 2008

As I read this, I couldn’t help but think about my school.  It is not as severe as this specific case, but similiar.  Our school has Open Court as our “phonics program”.  However, it is not a true phonics program.  It is very scripted and does not meet the needs of every type of learner.  Needless to say, I NEVER use it.  The TE is so full of dust it’s scary.  Why should I use a program that I know is not best suited for my learners.  I teach kindergarten with a high percentage of ELL in my classroom.  They need interactive dialogue, modeling, one on one, small group, whole group, partner time, individual time….NOT DIRECT INSTRUCTION TIME!  I must say that I have never been made to teach this program.  It is stated that Open Court is our phonics program and time has been built into the daily schedule for it by administration, but no one comes around to check to see if you’re teaching it or not.  I feel that I am the teacher in the room.  I work with these 19 individual students everyday.  Shouldn’t I be the one and the only one who decides what’s best for my learners?  I think so.  I do not agree that someone who has been out of the classroom for X amount of years or better yet has never set foot in a classroom should tell me what is the best way to teach my students.  How does that even make sense?  It seems that education has just become too political and we are worried too much about the wrong things.  The joy of teaching is being taken away by “the powers that be” and I believe this is a major factor in teacher attrition. 

February 4, 2008

“Of the experiences I have had with reading in and out of Brazil, I would single out as the best the ones I gained from coordinating reading groups around the text.”  (p.57)

When I read this I immediately thought of our book study groups from the fall semester.  I absolutely loved reading books and discussing them with my colleagues and friends.  I gained new insights and perspectives that I might not have had otherwise.  The girls from SES (Molly Hammer, Charlotte Tyson, Teresa Hinton, Corey Rieke, Jen Pomfret, and I) decided to take it one step further and create a book study group at our school as our burning issue from Barbara and Tonia’s class.  We were very enthusiastic about doing this.  We couldn’t wait to get started and we proposed the idea to our principals who approved it.  There was a catch.  We couldn’t allow the staff to choose only from our book list.  Instead we offered some suggestions and so did some other people (administrators, literacy coach).  In the end, half of us lead a study on a book that we all chose and the other half were stuck leading a study on a book that we were only partially interested in.  I think that for there to be active and engaging dialogue, one must be interested in the book and interested in being a part of a discussion group.  I believe Freire is correct in the fact that he believes that some of the best reading comes from “forming reading groups around the text”.   However, I think that the members of that group need to be there willingly.  It seemed as though the people involved in this book study were only doing it as a “half to”.  In the end the book study wasn’t what we had dreamed it would be and I have often pondered starting my own little book discussion group with my colleagues who are interested in being an active member of the group over the summer.