Ian's presentation hearkened me back over a decade. I took two years of Spanish, in my junior and senior years of high school. I was often confused in class, particularly with all of the different forms. Today, I remember words and phrases, but cannot say hardly anything in the correct tense. Ian's suggestions seem like an good way for students to actually get something out of Spanish class. It is better to learn a few things well than learn a mass amount of information but be able to do nothing with it.

It does amaze me how little focus there was on the oral aspect of learning Spanish. That is how small children learn language. They listen and speak. The reading and writing comes later. Secondary language instruction in this country focuses on reading and writing, which explains why it does not come naturally and little of actual use is learned. There is a lot of “repeat after me” oral instruction, but little requirement for students to actually synthesize anything they have learned into sentences. Oral testing is nonexistent. With the rapidly growing Latino population in this country, giving students some basic ability to understand and speak Spanish is very important. Clearly, time, energy, and resources need to be devoted to overhauling the way second languages are taught in our schools.

Ian's research can be applied to other disciplines. The “reduction in curriculum” may be useful in other subjects. Math, in particular, tends to cram many concepts in a short amount of time, often without much time for revisiting. Math should at least use the cyclical approach (which it often does), since concepts are returned to in future units and classes. In history, often too much information is crammed into students brains in such little time. One year of American history is not enough to learn anything in detail. I would prefer to cover at least a few events in depth, so students actually have a deep understanding of some events and how they connect, rather than a giant, disconnected blob of events and people, most of which they will forget by the time they leave high school.

Sudbury schools are extremely interesting, if nothing else. I can see how the questions of student motivation arise. Letting a bunch of kids figure out what they want to learn sounds like disaster. However, observing my own kids, I see how this would work extremely well for many kids. Kids are curious and want to learn. My children will pick up flash cards and want to quiz each other on numbers and shapes. My five year old is learning how to sound out words, and he loves to try to read words he encounters on cereal boxes and billboards. They ask questions. They want to be read to, sometimes from non-fiction books about dinosaurs or dogs. Of course, at home, they have the distractions. Ninja Turtles, Disney books, and Star Wars action figures compete with educational materials, and usually win if I let them.

However, in an environment without these non-educational distractions, I absolutely see how kids are motivated to learn. It is in our human nature. If these Sudbury schools can set kids up for success in the real world, I would love to see them more widely implemented. However, success in the real world is my main concern. As Lucas pointed out, all of those white, upper-middle class kids are already set up for success in the real world. A Sudbury school with poor, minority children may not be as successful. If they can adequately prepare students for college, with perhaps the last couple years at Sudbury in a sort of transitional period, I can see them working, for most kids, providing they do start there from the early years.

I feel that I would enjoy “co-learning” at a Sudbury school as well. One attractive aspect of teaching in general is the necessity of expanding my own education. Discovering new information along with students would be enjoyable. I wish that university education was more like Sudbury schools. If I could receive a degree by studying literally whatever I wish, writing/creating based on those studies, and synthesizing it all in a thesis, I could be a student forever.

These research presentations have been enlightening. Each of us has chosen a different topic, done all the digging, and presenting the important information on different issues to the rest of the class. I have learned much. We have looked at PARCC several times throughout this class, enough that I can formulate a solid opinion on it. Whenever I learn that Pearson is behind something, the conspiracy theorist in me automatically takes over. I despise the massive trends of corporate conglomeration. Pearson has become the education conglomerate, and reliance on one for-profit company for so much of our educational resources is very disturbing.

However, in an attempt to suppress my inner conspiracy theorist, the PARCC test itself is a step in the right direction. I am a huge proponent of critical thinking, and testing those skills is difficult, but important (if standardized testing is to be done, that is). PARCC does test high-level thinking. As we have learned, it is very flawed. The technological bells and whistles are no substitute for clear directions. It may be too difficult. I looked at it a bit more after class, and struggled with some parts, and I fancy myself fairly skilled in English/language arts. It may be asking too much for high school students to ever score well on these tests. It is certainly asking too much for them to score well any time in the next few years. This high-level thinking requires scaffolding, and the tests should be scaffolded as well, perhaps with gradually increasing difficulty over the next five years or so.

Calan's presentation also greatly intrigued me. IB schools, with oversight, could be a very important and successful way of educating in our increasingly globalized world. I would love to teach at one. I am not sure if I would want to spend five years in Saudi Arabia, but if I did not have kids I would consider it. The idea that students in different countries receive the same quality education, preparing them for universities worldwide, is ambitious, but I think very important in the future. If IB schools are simply a networking opportunity, however, then our priorities are greatly misplaced (which is often the case).

In the roundtable discussion, the value/rule/guideline (whatever it is we called them) that I suggested, relating to technology, was synthesized based on my character's likely interest as the founder of an up-and-coming internet startup. However, I personally believe what I said. Perhaps not the comment about math and science being crucial. They are crucial, but personally I hated them, and consciously steered clear of any career that would have required me to take more than the minimum of college math and science. But I do see the importance, and feel that high levels of math and science should be available in high school to those students who are capable of taking them. Computer programming and web design should be offered. It is amazing what teenagers have done with technology. They can be vocational courses, just like auto shop. In an age where so many jobs move overseas, technological jobs are prevalent in this country. It is the future. 3D printing was unfathomable fifteen years ago. Who knows what technology will bring by the time my kids graduate from college.

Technology in its many forms is important in any classroom. It's amazing how assistive technology helps people with disabilities. There is a blind woman in the disabilities support center (or so I believe it is called) that is incredible with a smart phone. Her fingers move faster than a teenager texting all her friends at once. She uses all apps to run other assistive technology. It really does help people do things they would have great difficulty doing otherwise.

Among students without disabilities, technology is so important as well. Kids and teenagers are so technologically proficient, and they enjoy using technology. It is a way to engage students. For my own teaching, the ability to rip a video clip from a DVD, add it to a powerpoint, and integrate it in a lecture, with very little extra time and effort, is incredible. Technology certainly helps us teach to different learning styles. It also helps us access so much information. Government documents and other primary sources are at my fingertips. Learning has been transformed by technology, and, if utilized in the right manner, for the better.

Of the readings this week, I found the TIME article quite interesting and useful. Why, I am rather unsure. It is full of science terms, and other stuff that usually cannot hold my attention. But it was quite interesting to learn the biological reasons why teenagers act as they do. I have previously heard of the undeveloped prefrontal cortex (this came up rather often in my first MAT class), but this article shows that there are numerous biological reasons teenagers seem to lack common sense. The “pruning” was perhaps most striking. Who knew that part of the brain needed to shrink to develop such skills?

And of course hormones, which were rather tragically limited to only a couple paragraphs in the article. Hormones cause teens to do all sorts of stupid things, like try to impress girls in dumb ways, or have sex with them without thinking of the consequences. Perhaps this article interested me so much because in a decade I will be dealing with these issues outside my classroom, times two. Hopefully science will provide more answers into what makes teens tick, and psychologists or someone else can come up with some ways to successfully deal with such issues.

The class exercise was very insightful into my own teenage years. Or, rather, insight into how little I really remember about so much of those years. I know I did some stupid things, but the only ones I recall are the ones I did several times, like drive way too fast and hang out with people doing drugs (I abstained). I don't remember being obsessively self-conscious about my appearance, but I did have a year or so where I actually tried to let my hair grow (which looked terrible). I do recall the constant battles with my parents over practicing my trombone. I was really good, and my parents seemed to think I could become a professional trombone player or something, and they pushed hard enough to remove most of the enjoyment from band. I did play my trombone in a hardcore metal band for a few years. That was fun. I also clearly remember the answer to the teacher question. My band teacher and I clashed constantly, because he was ridiculously serious about marching band, which I hated. I slacked off a lot. I think, despite clashing with him, I may have gotten away with some stuff because I was really good. Important life lesson.

I have now had my first encounter with the Illinois learning standards.

When I watch a movie, if it begins with a cliché, I can almost guarantee that I need not continue watching. The movie will inevitably be bad. For example, a horror movie that begins with a car that refuses to start is a dead giveaway that I am not watching a Hitchcock-level film. The Illinois state history standards begin with this: George Santayana said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This is the ultimate history education cliché. It's very language implies that the past was all bad.

As I read this cliché, I knew I was not going to like the standards. I was correct. Whereas Common Core do not attempt to standardize content, the state standards haphazardly attempt to do so, which is worse than completely ignoring content. The state standards include some skill-based, Common Core-like standards. Many are semi-broad content-based, like “Analyze the relationship of an issue in world political history to the related aspects of world economic, social and environmental history.” These I take no issue with. However, the more specific standards are so few that they should not be included. “Analyze the impact of westward expansion on the United States economy.” This is a very good standard, but there are only 8 or 10 such specific standards for high school. Many highly-important events are nowhere to be found. Karl Marx is mentioned, but not a single US President. These specific standards need to be significantly expanded or dropped.

Whoever wrote these standards has an obsession with environmental history. Of the 33 content-based high school history standards, 14 involve environmental history. 42%!!! Our students may not know what Watergate is or be able to name any President besides Washington and Lincoln, but they'll be experts on how the Suez Canal affected the environment. Ridiculous only begins to describe. It is no wonder that they are not used very frequently. There are some I can use for my scope & sequence that are very applicable. However, there will entire units where only one state standard applies. I really hope no schools are tailoring their curriculum to the state standards.

As with most controversial issues, especially those concerning education, tracking has both pros and cons. I personally feel that, if implemented correctly, the positive significantly outweighs the negative. Clearly, math classes must be separated by ability. The ability gap is probably wider in math than any other subject. It is the unfortunate nature of math that students cannot move to a higher class if they show increased aptitude. The key to math is to get students in the correct class in the first place. Upon starting high school (or 8^th grade) math, teachers should identify as quickly as possible students that may not be in the correct class and move them up or down accordingly. Being in the most appropriate math class, even in high school, can ultimately have major career implications for students wishing to enter certain fields.

Today we briefly discussed science classes. I always found their linear progression in high school very odd. Unlike math, most science concepts differ so greatly between earth science, biology, chemistry, and physics that a linear progression seems inappropriate. All students should probably take a year of biology and earth science, but a year of physics without chemistry should be fine. As far as tracking goes, I wonder if it is such a good idea in science classes, particularly those incorporating many experiments. I cannot really explain why, however.

In social studies, however, I feel that tracking would be an excellent idea, if implemented correctly, of course. The lower track students would learn the essentials, but the higher track students could learn more information, cover more events, and explore deeper concepts. As a fan of writing, tracking would provide more opportunity to explore more complex writing in the higher track classes, while tailoring writing to the skill level of the lower track as well.

Still, there are issues. A teacher should ensure that the lower tracks do not get by easy. Students do not need incentive to stay in (or even drop to) the lower track.. It does seem to work well in English classes. I think what it boils down to is, do we sacrifice the higher performing students for the lower performing students? If our concern is competing on a global level, we need our strongest minds to be as strong as possible. Even on a national level, we have some major problems, and perhaps the brightest young minds of the next generation are the ones to solve them.