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.