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).