Tuesday, May 4, 2010
reflection on readings and class
I felt that I learned a lot in tongight's class. One thing I had to look up was what "Constructivist" meant in terms of teacher education. I do agree that Pacific uses this model, and while it feels different to me than the rote memorization/test/write a paper to prove what you know method, I do appreciate a different way of learning. Constructivist learning is described as being a more natural way of learning, where students aren't given a black and white right or wrong stamp from the instructor. Rather, the students themselves are encouraged to find his or her own answers based on prior experiences, knowledge, as so on. This is a topic I plan to re-visit a little later.
Monday, May 3, 2010
"Aimee Mullins" and her 12 pairs of legs
Recently, I viewed the video featuring "Aimee Mullins and Her 12 Pairs of Legs." While I wasn't completely sure what to expect given such a title, I believe Ms. Mullins embodies a wonderful sense of strength, vitality, and determination as she educates her audiences about what it is like to be not neccesarrily "disabled," but "able."
Aimee Mullins is a model, motivational speaker, and athlete (did I miss anything)? Her "12 pairs of legs" are various legs which have been tailored to fit her body to suit different needs, such as those she uses for running. Some are made just for fun, such as the pair that makes her six inches taller, or the beautiful intricate pair carved out of wood, which resemble a fancy pair of boots.
Mullins poses the question, "what makes someone beautiful?" Who dictates beauty, and why is beauty so limited? (If anyone hasn't watched the video already, it's worth it just for her Pamela Anderson joke). Mullins wants others to see not what she doesn't have, but what she has. Her vision of legs as an artform empowers her, as one friend of hers commented, "you are six inches taller today? That's not fair!"
The term "disability" is a limiting, and often demeaning term that often times is tossed about too lightly. Mullins encourages people to celebrate each other's differences, and celebrate who we are as individuals.
Response: I enjoyed the video, witnessing a strong, motivated person speak with such conviction. How might we view the person walking through the store with a prosthesis? With sympathy, or with indifference? People like Ms. Mullins actively convey to audiences that, yes, there are some differences, but no, it doesn't mean they're any less talented, funny, beautiful, smart, etc.
Aimee Mullins is a model, motivational speaker, and athlete (did I miss anything)? Her "12 pairs of legs" are various legs which have been tailored to fit her body to suit different needs, such as those she uses for running. Some are made just for fun, such as the pair that makes her six inches taller, or the beautiful intricate pair carved out of wood, which resemble a fancy pair of boots.
Mullins poses the question, "what makes someone beautiful?" Who dictates beauty, and why is beauty so limited? (If anyone hasn't watched the video already, it's worth it just for her Pamela Anderson joke). Mullins wants others to see not what she doesn't have, but what she has. Her vision of legs as an artform empowers her, as one friend of hers commented, "you are six inches taller today? That's not fair!"
The term "disability" is a limiting, and often demeaning term that often times is tossed about too lightly. Mullins encourages people to celebrate each other's differences, and celebrate who we are as individuals.
Response: I enjoyed the video, witnessing a strong, motivated person speak with such conviction. How might we view the person walking through the store with a prosthesis? With sympathy, or with indifference? People like Ms. Mullins actively convey to audiences that, yes, there are some differences, but no, it doesn't mean they're any less talented, funny, beautiful, smart, etc.
Response to "The Side Effects of NCLB"
This is indeed a subject I feel strongly about. In the article, "The Side Effects of NCLB" by Gordon Cawelti, the author raises several serious and important questions we should all be asking ourselves as we muddle through the murky waters of NCLB.
Yes, we needed some restructuring of the delicate framework responsible for ensuring our children receive an equally based education, that "No Child [would be] Left Behind," and that each and every student deserves a quality education. Schools needed to be held accountable, and poor teaching/management practices needed to be dissolved. I understand this competely. What pains me, is the fact that now, in the quest to uphold "NCLB," it seems the fundamental purpose for insurrecting this oversight in the first place comes with unforseen consequences that had not been taken into account.
The author effectively breaks down the article into several "side effects." Side effect 1, for example, leads to "A Skewed Curriculum." According to the author, (and if one were to take the time to honestly address the malfunctional issues of NCLB,) standards-based reform has led us to a curriculum that is primarily based on math, reading and writing. Not that these things are bad....they're not. The problem that comes into play happens when our children and our students complete their schooling knowing little of science, social studies or the arts, because their schooldistricts are "teaching to the test." Tragically, there is little, if any time (or funding for that matter) for art, music, or science. I see this NCLB as the bully bulldozer in my children's school-bulldozing its way through so many of the opportunities I and so many of the other students and their families hold dear. When our children and our students apply for college, how can we provide them with experiences to create "well-rounded" children when research-based methods lead NCLB and do not include opportunities for our children to become so?
Another side effect of NCLB is that we now have stressed out teachers and stressed students. Many teachers' jobs are dependent upon how well students perform on standardized tests. What's the problem with this? Well....a lot, actually. Some students just don't know how to do well on a "test." Period. In our teaching programs, why are teachers taught that all students have different levels of intellegence, or more specifically, we are taught to adhere to Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory. We are taught that it is essentially unfair and unjust to assess a student through a pencil-paper test each and every time, because 1) some are just not good at taking tests 2) there are other ways students can convey what they have learned through various methods of assessment, i.e. projects, a story, a timeline, powerpoint presentation, writing a play, etc, etc, because these multiple-levels of intellignce must be taken into account. Another issue with forcing students to take these computerized tests is that some will not take the test seriously at all. Really. Some will show up for their test, type A, A, A, for each given choice, and will do it just to get it overwith. Meanwhile, the teachers who have poured their hearts and souls into helping their students along are penalized because some of the students in their classroom did not "perform well" on the tests. Not that this will happen all of the time, but it does happen.
I could easily continue writing on the subject of NCLB, but alas, at this point I cannot, as I have other items waiting on my back burner. NCLB is, however, something I will plan to delve into more deeply in the future, as it continues to morph and change with every year that passes.
As I mentioned earlier, I completely understand the need for standards to be put into place, the need for accountability, and the need for every child to receive the education he or she deserves. But let's be smart about it. Let's take an honest look at how this NCLB thing is organized, how we are in fact, hurting, instead of helping our kids, and how taking high stakes tests is not the only way to try to prove that children are learning.
Yes, we needed some restructuring of the delicate framework responsible for ensuring our children receive an equally based education, that "No Child [would be] Left Behind," and that each and every student deserves a quality education. Schools needed to be held accountable, and poor teaching/management practices needed to be dissolved. I understand this competely. What pains me, is the fact that now, in the quest to uphold "NCLB," it seems the fundamental purpose for insurrecting this oversight in the first place comes with unforseen consequences that had not been taken into account.
The author effectively breaks down the article into several "side effects." Side effect 1, for example, leads to "A Skewed Curriculum." According to the author, (and if one were to take the time to honestly address the malfunctional issues of NCLB,) standards-based reform has led us to a curriculum that is primarily based on math, reading and writing. Not that these things are bad....they're not. The problem that comes into play happens when our children and our students complete their schooling knowing little of science, social studies or the arts, because their schooldistricts are "teaching to the test." Tragically, there is little, if any time (or funding for that matter) for art, music, or science. I see this NCLB as the bully bulldozer in my children's school-bulldozing its way through so many of the opportunities I and so many of the other students and their families hold dear. When our children and our students apply for college, how can we provide them with experiences to create "well-rounded" children when research-based methods lead NCLB and do not include opportunities for our children to become so?
Another side effect of NCLB is that we now have stressed out teachers and stressed students. Many teachers' jobs are dependent upon how well students perform on standardized tests. What's the problem with this? Well....a lot, actually. Some students just don't know how to do well on a "test." Period. In our teaching programs, why are teachers taught that all students have different levels of intellegence, or more specifically, we are taught to adhere to Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory. We are taught that it is essentially unfair and unjust to assess a student through a pencil-paper test each and every time, because 1) some are just not good at taking tests 2) there are other ways students can convey what they have learned through various methods of assessment, i.e. projects, a story, a timeline, powerpoint presentation, writing a play, etc, etc, because these multiple-levels of intellignce must be taken into account. Another issue with forcing students to take these computerized tests is that some will not take the test seriously at all. Really. Some will show up for their test, type A, A, A, for each given choice, and will do it just to get it overwith. Meanwhile, the teachers who have poured their hearts and souls into helping their students along are penalized because some of the students in their classroom did not "perform well" on the tests. Not that this will happen all of the time, but it does happen.
I could easily continue writing on the subject of NCLB, but alas, at this point I cannot, as I have other items waiting on my back burner. NCLB is, however, something I will plan to delve into more deeply in the future, as it continues to morph and change with every year that passes.
As I mentioned earlier, I completely understand the need for standards to be put into place, the need for accountability, and the need for every child to receive the education he or she deserves. But let's be smart about it. Let's take an honest look at how this NCLB thing is organized, how we are in fact, hurting, instead of helping our kids, and how taking high stakes tests is not the only way to try to prove that children are learning.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Disability is Natural
Recently, I reviewed the article, "Disability is Natural." Having a disability is not something to try to hide, or be ashamed of. In fact, it is society's problem in not having a better understanding of what "disability" really means. A mother may mourn over the child they feel they have lost when they learn that their son or daughter has a physical impairment or cognitive disorder. We (society) are so quick to apply labels to everything, probably to make the rest of "us" feel better. Placing labels on students in a school setting is necessary to a point. It is how the student receives the services they need through properly allocated funding. As mentioned in class, however, beyond school walls, the "disability" shouldn't matter at all.
After reading this article, I recalled an episode of a recent "Desperate Housewives" episode I watched about a month ago that really struck me. In this particular episode, the character Lynette discovers after giving birth to twins that one twin is born with a physical disability. Lynette grieves over the fact that her child will not be "perfect." There is a scene where a therapist visits the house to assist Lynette and her husband in showing them how to begin caring for their son. The baby cries uncontrollably, and Lynette walks out of the room in frustration and anguish as she realizes she may not be able to handle her son's disability and the emotions that are driven with it.
In the next scene, Lynette's son is about 15 and wants her to make him a sandwich as he sits in his wheel chair. Just as she is about to make it for him, she refuses, and tells him that he is perfectly able to do it himself. With some sulking, he makes it on his own, and when he does, seems to finally realize (as does Lynette) that his disability really doesn't limit him to the extent they think it does.
There is then a wonderful scene where Lynette and her husband are at a graduation ceremony where their son gives a moving speech about how his parents believed in him and didn't let his disability get in the way of becoming what he is today-valedictorian and head of his class. At the end of the speech, Lynette stands up, tears in her eyes, proud of the son she has raised and helped to be a normal, accepted, talented student.
The final scene shows Lynette waking up from surgery. While she is pregnant with twins, she realizes everything that had been going through her mind was all a dream. She learns that sadly, one of her twin babies had died during surgery-the one who was thought to have had a possibility for having a disability at birth. While her husband reassures her that the other baby is healthy and fine, Lynette again grieves over what could have been, and a child that she has now lost.
Reflection: I hope I can find this episode so that I can attach it to this blog. While Desperate Housewives programming isn't usually this introspective, I was deeply moved and impressed that to writers chose to address this topic so poignantly and realistically. While I am sure there are so many parents who just don't know what to do or where to turn when they find out their child has a disability, many, I hope, realize that their chidren are wonderful gifts with many possiblities who deserve to be loved, cared for, and accepted.
After reading this article, I recalled an episode of a recent "Desperate Housewives" episode I watched about a month ago that really struck me. In this particular episode, the character Lynette discovers after giving birth to twins that one twin is born with a physical disability. Lynette grieves over the fact that her child will not be "perfect." There is a scene where a therapist visits the house to assist Lynette and her husband in showing them how to begin caring for their son. The baby cries uncontrollably, and Lynette walks out of the room in frustration and anguish as she realizes she may not be able to handle her son's disability and the emotions that are driven with it.
In the next scene, Lynette's son is about 15 and wants her to make him a sandwich as he sits in his wheel chair. Just as she is about to make it for him, she refuses, and tells him that he is perfectly able to do it himself. With some sulking, he makes it on his own, and when he does, seems to finally realize (as does Lynette) that his disability really doesn't limit him to the extent they think it does.
There is then a wonderful scene where Lynette and her husband are at a graduation ceremony where their son gives a moving speech about how his parents believed in him and didn't let his disability get in the way of becoming what he is today-valedictorian and head of his class. At the end of the speech, Lynette stands up, tears in her eyes, proud of the son she has raised and helped to be a normal, accepted, talented student.
The final scene shows Lynette waking up from surgery. While she is pregnant with twins, she realizes everything that had been going through her mind was all a dream. She learns that sadly, one of her twin babies had died during surgery-the one who was thought to have had a possibility for having a disability at birth. While her husband reassures her that the other baby is healthy and fine, Lynette again grieves over what could have been, and a child that she has now lost.
Reflection: I hope I can find this episode so that I can attach it to this blog. While Desperate Housewives programming isn't usually this introspective, I was deeply moved and impressed that to writers chose to address this topic so poignantly and realistically. While I am sure there are so many parents who just don't know what to do or where to turn when they find out their child has a disability, many, I hope, realize that their chidren are wonderful gifts with many possiblities who deserve to be loved, cared for, and accepted.
Reflection on chapt. 2 from Kalyanpur and Harry
I found this chapter to be very eye-opening and interesting. This chapter written from the point of viewfrom an individual not originally from the U.S. identified several interesting social constructs surrounding culture and special education. For example, I found it intriguing that someone of Chinese descent would view their children's disability as something not to be dealt with on an individual basis-what we as Americans are all about-individuality, especially in Special Education, and instead greatly value the greater society of which their child is a part. A student of Chinese descent, therefore, may not receive or acquire all of the services they need becasue their parents don't value individuality.
Another interesting point I found was that there are cultures where parents do not know how to ask for services. The believe the school district is doing them a huge "favor" for helping their child, when in fact, it is part of the standard procedure.
Other cultures may view their child's disability as a punishment of the parent's wrongdoing or sins, such as in Mexican culture, while those who believe in reincarnation only see a child's disability as temporary, and the disabilty won't necessarily be carried over into the next life.
Reflection: Aside from living in Oregon for the last five years, I feel that my experiences growing up in and around Chicago has provided me with a rich and full experience that allows me to treat all of my students fairly and equally, understanding that there are multiple levels of diversity coming into play. The author did an excellent job in explaining how culture is interspersed among our schools, and no two students are ever alike. It is paramount that the special educator always be aware and empathetic of every student's familial situation.
Another interesting point I found was that there are cultures where parents do not know how to ask for services. The believe the school district is doing them a huge "favor" for helping their child, when in fact, it is part of the standard procedure.
Other cultures may view their child's disability as a punishment of the parent's wrongdoing or sins, such as in Mexican culture, while those who believe in reincarnation only see a child's disability as temporary, and the disabilty won't necessarily be carried over into the next life.
Reflection: Aside from living in Oregon for the last five years, I feel that my experiences growing up in and around Chicago has provided me with a rich and full experience that allows me to treat all of my students fairly and equally, understanding that there are multiple levels of diversity coming into play. The author did an excellent job in explaining how culture is interspersed among our schools, and no two students are ever alike. It is paramount that the special educator always be aware and empathetic of every student's familial situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)