Reflection for A Flickering Mind Chapter 7-10
"Bulldozing the Imagination" made me think of my own son. Most parents worry about the numbing effects of computers, television and games in general. Too much technology at any age can stifle creativity. I also see again a tendency of schools to use tools at too young of an age. Further, the idea that over exposure to multimedia can present a physiologically "explosive child" is scary. I wonder if there is a correlation to hyperactivity?

The idea of losing art to technology is tragic. And the school principal who believed he wouldn't need to buy books again was frightening. Also, the lack of vocational schools in our country is a big mistake. The most reassuring aspect of this chapter had to be the level-headed parents Oppenheimer mentioned as wanting good qualified teachers over more technology. I just keep thinking throughout this chapter that music and the arts are valuable in their own right, not just because they support academic progress.

"The Spoils of Industry Partnerships" felt like a long chapter but Oppenheimer makes a clear point about the lack of scruples among big business. I kind of disliked his insinuation that teachers should know better than to be swayed by smooth corporate types; but I don't see many of these gullible teachers he finds. I also how many IT graduates want to jump into schools and I assume be paid half as much as they could make at a for profit business and work twice as hard to keep a school's system running? This chapter just backed up my political beliefs in that I think deregulation is a bad idea. Companies cannot be trusted when money is on the line.

I was acutely interested in the discussion in "The Research Game" about AR and Star. When I started my job here in Jackson, I was told I needed to use the AR system. I politely refused because the program just seemed lame. ( I did the same with Inspiration: a great idea but frustrating and time consuming program.) I couldn't imagine any 8th grader being motivated by AR. I designed my way of assessing SSR and outside reading and my colleague was willing to join me so no 8th graders had to do AR. My husband happens to teaches 7th grade and he reluctantly tried SSR and shortly moved away from it because "students read 50 Captain Underpants books to earn points and gained no ability to talk about literature AND most of them fail." Soon 6th grade followed suit. I agree that the tests are very simplistic or sometimes just focused on some irrelevant details. Students feel limited by their "level" when in reality students benefit from sometimes reading above or below their lexile level. I do see a draw for some teachers as monitoring students reading is a challenging and overwhelming task. But I think the program is charade and I appreciated Oppenheimer's correlation of what success in AR and the TAAS actually means and that is that Texas sand other students are becoming proficient test takers and learning very little.

The discussion of testing was right on. Most states with the notable of exception of the New York Regent's Exam, writes lousy tests that sometimes have missing answers, poor questions and horrid writing prompts. Our partially online PAWS test is longer than the MCAT; it is excessively repetitive. This year students had nine paragraph response and two full essays. Can you imagine the average 8th grader producing nine quality paragraphs and two five to seven paragraph essays in one week about topics they have no interest in and little motivation to impress some vague testing audience? I usually try to motivate my students to endure this experience as one of their civic duties and let them know that if they don't prove they can write well, the high school will load them up with more rigid paragraph writing practice. Another problem is that out test doesn't explicitly say: respond in a paragraph including a topic sentence and supporting details but rather it asks a question that could be answered in a sentence. Neither does it mention the genre of writing expected. So in total opposition to Alfie Kohn (whom I actually admire), my inclusion homebase, motivated themselves to all write a developed paragraph or essay for every question if I allowed them to take turns bringing cakes. In a national ranking of the difficulty and quality of state tests our previous test came out 44th overall but it did get high marks for quality. If I think our test is bad; I cannot imagine the others. Filling the page on our tests goes a long way toward proficiency. Standardized tests, if you must give them should be written by teachers as in the case of New York, so then if a teacher is forced to teach to the test the work still reflects practice at reading, writing and thinking.

As far AR Math, this seems like a pretty weak tool but I can see using it in a "Math Lab" situation where student can get extra practice. This is not a replacement for a math class taught by an actual teacher who hopefully can create understanding as well as skill building.

Reflections on Streibel

When reading this article, I kept thinking: I don't use technology in these three ways. I am also realizing that many of these articles have more to do with my educational experience as a student due to the time they were written then my experience as a teacher. As I kid I don't remember much other than a black and green version of "Oregon Trail" on my dad's computer. At my school, we still had late night lay out nights where I would be frantically developing photos and again begging my dad to help me "make it less grainy." I didn't use Photoshop or any other software I can recall until college. So I am still kind of wondering when and where kids are being so over and poorly exposed to technology? However, our reading specialist has begun using Total Reader with our struggling reader in a fluency lab and I am wondering if anyone is familiar with that program? Does it pose the same pitfalls?

Links:This site is old but it ranks state tests and NY is on top:
http://www.princetonreview.com/footer/testingTesters.asp

This is Edgate's total reader I referred to as well:
http://www.edgate.com/total_reader

Reflection on A Flickering Mind 4-6:
To me these chapters were a serious downer. I was and still am ready for some GOOD news. For the first time I get the feeling Oppenheimer doesn't believe that teachers are hard workers or bright thinkers. He continues to note a few exceptions to a group, for which he seems to have little regard. I started to think during these chapters: come to my school. I do not teach at a perfect school but I think he sometimes isn't telling the whole story, for example, his discussion of PowerPoint. In the earlier chapters I agreed that sometimes content is lost in the face of technology but not always. Some students excel and some don't. My understanding of PowerPoint is that it is a presentation tool. My students complete a PowerPoint after they have written their poetry research paper. Creating the PowerPoint is easy because the hard work of gathering research, integrating information and writing the paper is done. I tell my students to consider that I am the audience for their paper while myself and their peers are the audience for their presentation. So might Oppenheimer judge our presentations as "academically thin" despite five pages of writing to the contrary? Maybe, but he'd be wrong. PowerPoint is a fancy poster board and it doesn't replace content or preparation. Students have to know, sometimes even memorize the information they are presenting to do well for their Speaking and Listening Standard, in this case a PowerPoint presentation. The best presentation I had this year was about Maya Angelou. My student dressed, spoke and presented as if she was Vivian Baxter, Angelou's mother. She was incredible. The PowerPoint in the background was for reference as she mesmerized her peers with her memorization of "Still I Rise" as well as her discussion of Angelou's difficult life and poetic talent. But this student is one of my "silk purses." I also had presentations where students did a lot of reading off their own project. However, I was thinking: read his or her paper. There is no doubt that it is "academically thin." So my point is: I am not sure technology deserves to be the full scapegoat here. Many of my lower performing students tend to struggle with everything: reading, writing, presentation, and social skills and they tend to be, more often than not, boys with or without IEP's. And I think this is a serious problem. Now that I have my own incredibly active two year old boy, I wonder about the lack of activity, of physical manipulation in an average wired classroom. So instead of refuting Oppenheimer's point I guess I am just piling on more blame: another dark side of technology is the promotion of a sedentary classroom.
But since the 4th of July is approaching I will get a tiny bit patriotic. Despite all of our American failures in education and I agree they are almost infinite, we as a society still attempt to educate everyone. My first grade nephew living North of London is up to two years ahead of where he was as an American kindergartener. He has started long division and frequently writes multi-paragraph stories with a demanding required vocabulary list. His teachers are also very strict. When I think about my own classroom, I know that in other countries and other times, many of the students would not even be there. By 8th grade most struggling students would have long been siphoned to vocational academies or working to support families. And I think, unlike at Blair, that all kids, especially in an English classroom deserve to be together. Putting all your "silk purses" together might look fantastic but who really loses in that situation? Sruggling students need to see excellent work in action. How does a struggling student strive to be excellent if he or she doesn't know what that looks like?

This is a general question for our cohort: Do other classmates see traditional curriculum being tossed aside regularly for the purpose of technology as they were at Tech High? Does Oppenheimer have it right in most schools? Are the three R's being lost to our e-lusions? What about the atmoshphere of chaos that he assumes accompanies technology?

My last complaint for this reflection is a lame one but I have to say it. While the percentage of money schools spend on wasted technology is inexcusable, it is a mere fraction of our military's budget. And I have to point out that despite lots of funding this other behemoth stuggles to perform as well. According to the CIA World Fact site and the Department of Education the numbers fall out like this: 518.1 billion to 56 billion for 2005. Ok, I'll admit it I am officially in defensive mode! But c'mon Oppenheimer tell us something teachers are doing is working!

Reflection On Bowe, Introduction and Chapters 1 & 2:
I found these three excerpts enlightening and important in considering how to best teach all students. I feel like I have accidentally stumbled on "Univeral Design" as a teacher but this article added depth and evidence for the adage, "What is good for one student usually helps all students." The special education teacher I collaborate with doesn't modify work or curriculum for just her students in our inclusion class like many special education teachers do. She will say, let's rethink this assignment, or can we add another option or I created a sheet of notes for everyone about that. She helps me find ways of presenting material in redundant ways to better suit all kids.
I thought the examples in these articles were very convincing. One of note for me was the discussion of larger bathrooms for the"handicapped." I always use guiltily use these facilities when I am with my son, especially when he was very small and in a stroller. Otherwise, my choice was to leave the door opened. Obviously, leaving a baby unattended in a public place is not an option. I won't feel terrible about using a better designed bathroom anymore.
I also like that Bowe noted that "Meeting all of the tremendous variety of needs these students present is not something most teachers can do. What is possible is to design and deliver instruction that responds to most of these needs" (Bowe 2). Otherwise the burden on teachers is too great.
Links for Week Three:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPoint
http://www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html