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.

I see why Professor Dennis is such a fan of Diane Ravitch. The chapter we read was extremely readable, very straightforward, no-nonsense writing. It lacked the jargon and purposeful vocabulary complexity that many articles and textbooks have. It was written to get the point across. It seems to have been written for the average teacher, not the pursuer of a PhD in teaching. It is not just the vocabulary, but the content. It is relevant. And, surprisingly, it contained a convincing argument for people of nearly any political stance that something spawned by the Reagan administration was rational and applicable to us today.

For obvious reasons, particularly significant to me was the discussion on history standards. It put the current standards in a historical perspective. Personally, I like the Common Core social studies standards. They promote critical thinking! This is something that was completely absent in some of my history classes. They promote the use of primary sources. Also lacking in my education. “Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media.” I am a media junkie. I can't get enough movies, music, and literature, and I want to incorporate as much media as I can. “Evaluate an author's premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other information.” When I read (or watch a movie or see something on TV or the internet), my mind always attempts to analyze the author's motivation. My skepticism usually emerges, provoking me to find other sources (perhaps the greatest strength of the internet!) The point is, many of these Common Core standards illustrate exactly what I want to do in my classroom. Too many social studies classes do not promote critical thinking, fueling the stigma that history is names, dates, and memorization.

So, in my opinion, we should keep these Common Core social studies standards. However, we need to add standards that cover the most important topics. Most graduates of my high school had no world history. That someone could graduate high school without knowing anything whatsoever about ancient Rome or Greece is a shame. We need some standards that give students common knowledge that every graduate should possess. We do not need to go so far as Hirsch and have dictionaries worth of terms, but at least broad events and subjects, and the most important people. We need both the critical thinking promoted by Common Core, as well as the specific information students should know. As is usually the case, we need a middle ground in this extremely polarized, politicized society.

In class yesterday, we wrote learning objectives. This I had not done in about ten months. It was a good refresher for when I inevitably have to write them again when I begin teaching in the fall. More pertinent to this class, it helped me write them more broadly, for each unit, for my scope & sequence project. These objectives that I wrote in class were fairly easy to come up with, yet I believe much more beneficial than most I have written previously. As discussed in class, writing the degree is rather pointless. Most of the time, the condition is pointless as well. Usually it relates to whatever instruction or project prompt or something that is probably implied somewhere else, or simply not necessary. These objectives strip away those, leaving only the most important parts: The student, what they should learn, and they should do to apply their knowledge.

It prompted some post-class discussion. Why we write learning objectives, are they important, etc. Often, they are not particularly important. In daily lesson plans, the objective is often very straightforward. Students will learn the beginnings of Illinois' statehood, because they should as citizens of the state. We do not really need to write a learning objective about this. It is self-explanatory. Of course, there are times when objectives may need to be written for daily lessons, such as when objectives may not be clear to outside individuals. If I give a lesson on the history of jazz, I should write objectives that show why I am teaching something that others might consider a waste of time in a history classroom, perhaps to cover myself more than anything. But usually, objectives probably do not need to be written for daily lessons.

Unit objectives seem more crucial, however. Daily objectives would likely be covered by most unit objectives. Objectives only using the knowledge level of Bloom's taxonomy usually do not need to written, and the broad nature of unit objectives is more likely to yield higher levels of thinking. Unit objectives can provide a framework for thinking about daily objectives. They also provide a view of the most important objectives of the unit, cutting away the fat, so to speak. In the format we wrote them, they are also easier to write, in my opinion.

Today everyone brought in their teaching artifact. This was very interesting for me, particularly, since I have not yet taught. It was helpful to see various methods other student teachers have used. I was particularly interested in Christine's, not so much for her guided notes, but by the methods she used to teach the French Revolution. I particularly, with my film background and huge interest in movies, plan to show relevant movie clips often, as she did with Les Miserables. I had not thought of acting out part of the musical in class, which I felt was a fantastic idea. I do plan on incorporating relevant fiction literature, at least excerpts, that are relevant to social studies. As is perhaps evidenced in class, I do not particularly like to stand up and lecture for lengthy periods. Multimedia is a great way to engage students.

The exercise also reminded me of an important point: Curriculum is far more than the textbook. A box can be part of the curriculum, if it relates to a story students are reading. Curriculum is a rather abstract concept, and certainly not limited to text and lectures. I feel that the text should be little more than a guide, at least in high school. Most high school students do not bother reading the textbook, therefore it does not need to be the main curriculum. If students show interest in particular events or issues, those should be focused on whenever possible. In my own experience in high school, I noticed that following the textbook in history class almost always meant rushing through the last few chapters, or completely skipping chapters. This is very unfortunate, as the more recent events of history are often more relevant to answering questions of why things are the way they are today. So, the textbook can be a guide, but curriculum is much more. Technology, media, and even props are part of curriculum. Thankfully this is the case. If teaching was just lecturing over the textbook, I would be utterly boring, and probably would be down a different career path.

In the various readings for this class, I have noticed that most of them have a rather dismal attitude towards the current state of public schools in the United States. While some simply call for some reform, others paint a dire picture of the future if drastic changes are not enacted. As discussed in class, I feel that our schools are not as bad as many perceive. “Schoolhouse Crock” points out some of the paranoia in regards to education in the U.S., and, out of the readings so far, seems to paint one of the more realistic portraits of our public school system.

The article sets the stage by marking Sputnik as the point where everything changed. Thus began the paranoia, that our education might be inferior, and that this could have serious consequences for our country on the world stage. The paranoia continues today. I had an economics class last semester. One part of the class focused on education. The instructor (on numerous occasions) highlighted our status far down the rankings list. He was disgusted by this, and stunned at the countries above us, particularly Russia. Of course, I often question the validity of such rankings. I wonder if countries perhaps fabricate their numbers. I know in some countries, not all students actually go through formal education for twelve years. Lower performing students go to schools to prepare them for careers, and may not be factored into testing numbers that contribute to rankings. It is not my expertise, however, and is perhaps beside the point.

This same economics instructor discussed his desire for privatization of education in this country. This article also brings up the issue, that conservatives have pushed for. I feel that privatization would increase the inequality between schools. If students choose which schools to attend, those who can feasibly attend better schools will, leaving lower-performing schools with less funding, and thus less opportunity to improve. And what happens when better schools are full? Do schools have admission requirements, testing perhaps, that can allow them to only accept the best students? Privatization is not the answer. A good place to start is the inequality of funding. Funding schools based on local taxes perpetuates the inequality between schools. Whether we like it or not, this is largely a racial issue. Poor, urban, minority schools are poorly funded, while white suburban schools have swimming pools and multi-million dollar stadiums. Poor white schools in rural areas are also poorly funded, so the problem is not simply racial. However, the point is, funding inequality is an issue that must be addressed promptly if we are to improve our education system as a whole.

On the first day of class, we had the obligatory introductions, where everyone tells their name and something about themselves. In teaching classes, these introductions usually include discussing the reasons we want to teach. This class was no exception. Certainly, the introductions serve a purpose, that is, to get to know everyone whom we will be spending the next month with. However, in a teaching class in particular, these introductions serve as an important reminder for future teachers. This group features many vastly different backgrounds. Some have no teaching experience, some have many years of experience. Some have taught in different countries and different grade levels. Our life experiences are vastly different as well. We come from different parts of the country (or another country). Our ages differ significantly. Some have kids. Our undergraduate degrees range from political science to sign language to cinema.

We can learn many things from our vast differences. First, as teachers, we can draw upon each others' experiences. As new teachers who will be creating new lessons nearly every day, we can use any ideas we can get. Our different backgrounds give us different skills and perspectives, resulting in different ideas for teaching, and our position as a group of students allows us the opportunity to share these ideas with one another. This is important for our future employment as well, a reminder that teachers should absolutely share ideas with one another to improve their own teaching.

We should also keep in mind that students have vastly different backgrounds. As we touched on in class, students have different socioeconomic statuses, home environments, and interests. These should be taken into account when teaching, as much as possible. We should also convey these differences to the students. Often, particularly in Southern Illinois (outside of Carbondale, especially), there is little diversity in schools. Racial diversity is often non-existent. In rural schools, there is often little economic diversity; most are lower class. High school should prepare students for the rest of their lives. This includes conveying the “great big world” outside their home towns, where people are very different. Embracing other cultures and peoples is crucial for success in the increasingly globalized world in which we live.