I attended a staff meeting today after school that was aimed at getting us ready for upcoming visits from the district. Because my school is so low in scores and high in every sort of need you could imagine, we are under great scrutiny right now - more so than other "regular" schools. The scores all across the board at the school are dismal and depressing, and the students' discouragement is exhibited in the lack of effort and the sometimes mind-boggling behaviors.
Anyway, we were told at the meeting what sorts of things we should definitely be displaying in our classrooms - things that the district big wigs (who probably never taught a class --let alone a class like they would have at my school) would want to see. Most of the requirements are common sense things to incorporate everyday, and then there are the extras that are only for the "dog and pony" effect because the higher-ups think they enhance instruction. (Some of the things do, and some things don't.)
With all the many expectations for which we are held accountable, we at the school all wonder the same thing... Where is the parent accountability? ...and the parents' parents' accountability? ...and the parents' parents' parents' accountability? I think you get my point. There has obviously been an ongoing cycle of people having babies and not actually raising them, so the cycle almost never ends. If a student is never taught to focus on his education, work diligently, respect authority, and is never expected to succeed in life overall, we must face the reality of what happens later on in the life of that student. He goes on eventually to have many children of his own, and he has the same low to no standards with his offspring. If someone can't handle his own life and make something good of it, then he should not be bringing new life into this world ---unless he's planning to give that child the childhood he didn't have - one of love, protection, support (physical, mental, spiritual, etc.), and education. The very moment his efforts are shown to be lacking the aforesaid basics, then his children should be put in the care of those who will ensure the success of the children.
There is no excuse for someone's child to be reading at a second grade level in the fifth grade. Unfortunately, yes--there are bad teachers. It shouldn't be the case, just as we shouldn't have bad parents. I guess I must remind myself we don't live in the perfect world. There are circumstances where one child might have had one teacher who was not the best--maybe even two teachers, but I'm sorry-- a PARENT starts teaching his/her child practically the moment the baby's eyes open. If a parent has a teacher who isn't doing his/her job, then he/she should stand up for his child's educational rights! It ultimately falls on the parents.
There are children with mental defects, but they are not as numerous as the scores from each one of our school's children might suggest. It's the lack of essential parenting that puts children into this predicament of low scores and seemingly low ability. In reality, they are capable of so much more, but nothing is reinforced at home by the parents. Therefore, students are left to their own devices, while teachers do their best to raise the bar of expectation that was never introduced at home.
So, where are the parents? The fact is many "parents" shouldn't be parents. Please notice my distinction there. Almost anyone can be a "parent," but it takes a well-rounded, kind-hearted, hard-working, and dare I say educated human being to be a parent. I was born, raised, and still live in Pine Hills (known as "the ghetto" to most people), so I know what outside influences I'm battling each day at my neighborhood school. But even though I lived in such a place, I turned out just fine (I hope you agree--if you know me :)), so I know success can be reached. I just sometimes wonder how --when many of my students don't have the love and support (and shelter--figuratively and literally) that I had growing up. They are caught up in a cycle they cannot keep from spiraling out of control. I pray that my efforts somehow reach them and change them for the better.
I work hard and put in long hours trying to get every bit of information crammed into each student's brain in a way that works for their individual skills and interests. Oftentimes, in my particular environment, I see the fruits of my labor. There are also times when I don't. I cannot force a child to learn. At some point, it is that child's responsibility (and yes--the parents' responsibility) to ensure he/she is taking full advantage of what I offer. Why, then, do the district people not visit the parents? Are they checking to see if the parents are feeding their children, giving them encouragement, conferencing with the teacher, providing feedback on their child's progress, etc.? No. It all falls on the teachers.
Please do not read the above paragraphs and think that in some way I am trying to suggest that I should not have to answer to anyone. I fully expect and encourage others to keep all teachers in check. With such a demanding career, I knew that my life would be changed forever, and I take the good and the bad in stride. I do, however, believe that I should have the support of the community in which I teach. Give kids what they need to be successful! If you are a parent, step up to the plate! I should never hear the sad stories of students who steal snacks from the teacher because he's not fed at home. Students should not being throwing desks and chairs in an angry rage just because they were reprimanded. Getting an attitude and refusing to follow simple directions like 'follow along in your book' should not be the norm. And yet... All of those have happened. The most serious of those are not even the worst stories that I have heard from my colleagues and/or have experienced myself.
Again, when I signed up for this job, I knew what kind of school and neighborhood I was embracing. And I still fully embrace it. People have asked me, "Why don't you go to another school?" Well, the truth is this is where I am most needed. I might come home exhausted and wondering why the world is the way it is, but my passion to teach keeps me begging for more challenges the next day. I have no regrets, and I must keep trudging on and working to better myself and my students. With or without parent support, I am expected to develop miracles in the classroom. So, daily, I plant the seeds and water them until one day I see them in full bloom. I just pray that God intervenes (somehow through me --in part) in the lives of my students, so that the cycle of "parent-less" parenting crumbles and a new cycle of hope, respect, and education take priority over all despicable earthly motives and routines.
Boredom Leads Me to Blogging
Posted by
Kristy Zabel's Blog
comments (1)
A friend of mine has a blog site, where she posts pics of her daily outfits. ((http://aworkingmomscloset.blogspot.com)) It's a cool idea that I could probably get into doing easily. I love cute outfits! However, since I'm a teacher, and it's summertime, I'd have to post lots of "pajama day" pictures if I truly did it daily. :-D
I started out just looking at my friend's site, and then I was drawn to other style sites of which she is a fan. It's interesting to see the individual styles created from pieces that are available to everyone in stores around the country. A lot of people have some real guts to wear some of the things they come up with. I'm not that brave and adventurous most of the time, but I still like to think I look good in spite of my tendency to play it safe.
Questions:
1. Should I do the 'daily wear' postings?
2. What should the next topic on my blog be?
**********
Well, here I am, running out of things to say already... So much for this blog saving me from boredom.
I started out just looking at my friend's site, and then I was drawn to other style sites of which she is a fan. It's interesting to see the individual styles created from pieces that are available to everyone in stores around the country. A lot of people have some real guts to wear some of the things they come up with. I'm not that brave and adventurous most of the time, but I still like to think I look good in spite of my tendency to play it safe.
Questions:
1. Should I do the 'daily wear' postings?
2. What should the next topic on my blog be?
**********
Well, here I am, running out of things to say already... So much for this blog saving me from boredom.
Respect
Posted by
Kristy Zabel's Blog
comments (2)
Well, it's about time I blogged! I just got back from a great trip to the Dominican Republic--my first time off the North American continent. :) I decided that I would blog about one of the things I experienced while I was there--just because I think it's an important thing to cover at least once in my blog. I'll begin with a question...
Do I look like a dog or a cat?
In America, some men whistle when they spot a woman they think is attractive. Isn't whistling done to get a dog's attention? In the Dominican Republic, the men do some sort of hissing or clicking noise--accompanied by enough English to get the message across to me that they are desperate pigs. Isn't that clicking noise used to get a cat's attention? According to the tour guide book, Dominicans do that in their culture (although I've had this problem in America too). I want to know why it is a part of any culture. Where did the idea of women being like meat come from? I'm curious (George). Every male comes from a woman, and I'm sure that their mothers did not teach them to treat women like that, so what the heck?!
Also, I would like to know what kind of reaction those men are expecting to get from me. Do they expect me to run over and give them a big smooch on the lips? Do they think I'm going to smile, and whistle right back at them? Do they think I'm going to give them a lap dance or something? Whatever it is they are imagining is not going to happen--so why bother, guys? I don't understand the thinking or lack thereof that is occurring in their minds.
I'm not a streetwalker or mindless bimbo, so don't treat me like I have no respect for myself or like there is no reason for me to have your respect. Sure, I know it's natural to 'check people out' and acknowledge the outer beauty they may exhibit, but can't it be done tastefully? Yes--I know it can--I've done it. Ok--so that problem is solved. Let's try it then, guys! Have some respect---both for the women you see and for yourselves for cryin' out loud.
I know today's culture (seemingly everywhere) portrays chauvinism as an okay thing. Examples: music industry, commercials for just about anything, movies, (so basically --Hollywood--)... I think it's time for upstanding women AND men to put an end to this acceptance. People, tell your kids to treat others with respect, so we can stop this ridiculousness!!!
Ahhh...sometimes it just feels good to vent!
Do I look like a dog or a cat?
In America, some men whistle when they spot a woman they think is attractive. Isn't whistling done to get a dog's attention? In the Dominican Republic, the men do some sort of hissing or clicking noise--accompanied by enough English to get the message across to me that they are desperate pigs. Isn't that clicking noise used to get a cat's attention? According to the tour guide book, Dominicans do that in their culture (although I've had this problem in America too). I want to know why it is a part of any culture. Where did the idea of women being like meat come from? I'm curious (George). Every male comes from a woman, and I'm sure that their mothers did not teach them to treat women like that, so what the heck?!
Also, I would like to know what kind of reaction those men are expecting to get from me. Do they expect me to run over and give them a big smooch on the lips? Do they think I'm going to smile, and whistle right back at them? Do they think I'm going to give them a lap dance or something? Whatever it is they are imagining is not going to happen--so why bother, guys? I don't understand the thinking or lack thereof that is occurring in their minds.
I'm not a streetwalker or mindless bimbo, so don't treat me like I have no respect for myself or like there is no reason for me to have your respect. Sure, I know it's natural to 'check people out' and acknowledge the outer beauty they may exhibit, but can't it be done tastefully? Yes--I know it can--I've done it. Ok--so that problem is solved. Let's try it then, guys! Have some respect---both for the women you see and for yourselves for cryin' out loud.
I know today's culture (seemingly everywhere) portrays chauvinism as an okay thing. Examples: music industry, commercials for just about anything, movies, (so basically --Hollywood--)... I think it's time for upstanding women AND men to put an end to this acceptance. People, tell your kids to treat others with respect, so we can stop this ridiculousness!!!
Ahhh...sometimes it just feels good to vent!
Entertainment vs. Worship
Posted by
Kristy Zabel's Blog
comments (3)
These days, some people claim that “young people’s” [generalization] idea of worship is to hear a rock-like band and to be “entertained” essentially. But as a “young person” myself, I tend to disagree with this generalization somewhat but to ask “so what?” at the same time. I have a dual sense of worship because of my upbringing in a traditional church and because of my being introduced to modern worship and contemporary worship music in my early teen years. Why discount someone’s worship experience just because it’s different or more “contemporary”?
As an elementary education major in college, I was told over and over to create lesson plans that were both educational and fun. So I say why not do the same with worship experiences? I love pomp and circumstance and good ol’ tradition very much, but I find nothing wrong with using contemporary music, technology, and such to spice things up a bit. What does it hurt? If anything, I think it boosts the experience. We in the younger generation have grown up with all sorts of media, and it’s a big part of our lives. To expect us to walk into a church where none of that media is present and expect us to come back and feel like we are even considered a part of the crowd is a bit naïve.
My church currently has kids leave the traditional worship service and go for a more entertaining means of learning about Biblical teachings. On one hand, this is a great service to our young people, but on the other hand it’s doing them a great disservice in the long run—as well as to the church. Why? Two reasons. One: The kids are missing out on the tradition and regular worship experience offered by the church each Sunday. Two: The church is continuing to do traditional worship only, while training its kids to expect fun and interactive worship experiences. And once the kids graduate from the children’s moment and find themselves sitting in the pews for a regular service with no interaction or media of any sort, they (the older congregants) shouldn’t be shocked when the kids grow up and don’t come back. Very few youth are like myself—content in traditional surroundings every Sunday. Nowadays, I even find myself at times longing for more contemporary injections into the experience every once in a while.
In my view, as long as a worship service includes real worship, tradition, contemporary elements, fellowship, and acceptance, there can be no argument that the focus is not on God. Having a screen with hymn lyrics or Bible verses on it, clapping, guitar-playing, and the like do not make for an “entertain me only” experience. It just opens the doors to a more diverse group of congregants. And I don’t see why anyone of any age would discourage that possibility.
I can worship God in a variety of settings, so I know that others can too. I can pray in my car or at the altar, sing in the traditional choir, sing along to a new contemporary worship song being projected onto a screen, recite the Apostle’s Creed, and more. No experience out-shines another in my mind. As long as I focus on the true meaning of my actions, I cannot lose sight of the purpose of my being there.
Jesus himself made His own Commandments more understandable and more easily acceptable by telling parables or stories. He humanized His messages so that we might better relate to His Commandments. For this reason also, I don’t believe that adding to traditional worship methods is offensive to God. Obviously, I can’t speak for Him, but I know that He accepts us as we are, and we are called to do the same and to proclaim His Word using any method necessary.
We have cantatas and children’s plays to illustrate God’s Word in a somewhat contemporary –traditional manner, and yet this doesn’t seem to be viewed by the overly traditional supporters as entertainment—because it isn’t! These are a couple of our human ways to worship the Lord. Again, as long as the focus is on Him, what’s wrong with maybe having a band with guitars and [gasp!] drums? Nothing.
It is time for church-goers and church leaders everywhere to wake up and smell the Starbucks cappuccino (or just regular Lipton’s sweet tea—if they’re more like me). The new age of worship is upon us, and if we choose to ignore it, our society will continue to spiral into an abyss of Godless people.
As an elementary education major in college, I was told over and over to create lesson plans that were both educational and fun. So I say why not do the same with worship experiences? I love pomp and circumstance and good ol’ tradition very much, but I find nothing wrong with using contemporary music, technology, and such to spice things up a bit. What does it hurt? If anything, I think it boosts the experience. We in the younger generation have grown up with all sorts of media, and it’s a big part of our lives. To expect us to walk into a church where none of that media is present and expect us to come back and feel like we are even considered a part of the crowd is a bit naïve.
My church currently has kids leave the traditional worship service and go for a more entertaining means of learning about Biblical teachings. On one hand, this is a great service to our young people, but on the other hand it’s doing them a great disservice in the long run—as well as to the church. Why? Two reasons. One: The kids are missing out on the tradition and regular worship experience offered by the church each Sunday. Two: The church is continuing to do traditional worship only, while training its kids to expect fun and interactive worship experiences. And once the kids graduate from the children’s moment and find themselves sitting in the pews for a regular service with no interaction or media of any sort, they (the older congregants) shouldn’t be shocked when the kids grow up and don’t come back. Very few youth are like myself—content in traditional surroundings every Sunday. Nowadays, I even find myself at times longing for more contemporary injections into the experience every once in a while.
In my view, as long as a worship service includes real worship, tradition, contemporary elements, fellowship, and acceptance, there can be no argument that the focus is not on God. Having a screen with hymn lyrics or Bible verses on it, clapping, guitar-playing, and the like do not make for an “entertain me only” experience. It just opens the doors to a more diverse group of congregants. And I don’t see why anyone of any age would discourage that possibility.
I can worship God in a variety of settings, so I know that others can too. I can pray in my car or at the altar, sing in the traditional choir, sing along to a new contemporary worship song being projected onto a screen, recite the Apostle’s Creed, and more. No experience out-shines another in my mind. As long as I focus on the true meaning of my actions, I cannot lose sight of the purpose of my being there.
Jesus himself made His own Commandments more understandable and more easily acceptable by telling parables or stories. He humanized His messages so that we might better relate to His Commandments. For this reason also, I don’t believe that adding to traditional worship methods is offensive to God. Obviously, I can’t speak for Him, but I know that He accepts us as we are, and we are called to do the same and to proclaim His Word using any method necessary.
We have cantatas and children’s plays to illustrate God’s Word in a somewhat contemporary –traditional manner, and yet this doesn’t seem to be viewed by the overly traditional supporters as entertainment—because it isn’t! These are a couple of our human ways to worship the Lord. Again, as long as the focus is on Him, what’s wrong with maybe having a band with guitars and [gasp!] drums? Nothing.
It is time for church-goers and church leaders everywhere to wake up and smell the Starbucks cappuccino (or just regular Lipton’s sweet tea—if they’re more like me). The new age of worship is upon us, and if we choose to ignore it, our society will continue to spiral into an abyss of Godless people.
My Account of Inauguration Day – Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Posted by
Kristy Zabel's Blog
comments (0)
I’m typing this blog as I watch the inauguration live on the television…
There are so many people in D.C.! It’s a sea of Americans.
Aretha Franklin singing “My Country Tis of Thee” ????? Why? Baaaad….ugh! It sounds like a man (who couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket) doing a Saturday Night Live-style joke version of a singer. Wow.
Rick Warren is saying the invocation. Screaming during a prayer?
So many people don’t understand the magnitude of this choice of President. Some just see that he is a black man. This point is partially explained by remembering my former students’ excitement over his election win -- for no other reason than because he is black—not because of his accomplishments in life, intelligence, or hard work—only his skin color. This is because my students’ parents and so many other Americans are uninformed and, by choice, do not care to look at policy, ideology, or beliefs but rather, they identify and focus only on color.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is wonderful for history to be made by having an African-American President, but I could have waited another four years for one I could actually agree with and have “hope” in. Same with a woman President – it will be a wonderful addition to United States history eventually, but I don’t want one for just history’s sake; I want one who will actually be good for the country.
I did not want Barack Obama to be President. Heck, I didn’t even want McCain! But I will support Obama only because he is going to be in charge of my country.
And here we go right now—Obama is about to take the Oath of Office. History. He’s officially President.
[a couple minutes later…] Now he is giving his inaugural address.
As I’m listening to the address and seeing shots of the throng, I’m thinking…well, at least with all this support Barack has, there won’t be so much whining and complaining. It was so annoying to hear people complain about George. I loved George. He was a good President and did so much to keep our country safe.
Break from thought---please, Barack ---promises, promises. Health care and other stuff he’s promising right now…
Anyway, back to what I was saying about George W. Bush. He protected our country, and he is a great American in my eyes. So many people –especially Democrats, of course—complained and complained until they were blue in the face. I’m happy to say that even though many Republicans like myself didn’t want Barack Obama to be President, I guarantee that we won’t react to Obama’s Presidency like many fools did to Bush’s Presidency. I believe we have more class than that. Sure, there will be some people against Obama who will go nuts; there are always nutty people who can’t control themselves, but I say that we Republican people with brains and understanding will not whine and disrespect the new President.
Still listening to Barack’s inaugural address… Right now he’s giving a message to other nations…talking about our support and our understanding of the suffering of many nations. Now he’s talking about our heroes. “Guardians of liberty.”
I just checked my Facebook while history is continuing to play out on television… hehe
It’s 20-something degrees in D.C. right now. A throng of people fill the National Mall all the way down to the Washington Monument. There’s no official count or even a guess as to how many people are there right now. According to FOX News, in 1965, there were 1.2 million people out for the LBJ inauguration—the most in history. This inauguration might beat that.
Obama just finished his speech.
People are waving American flags and chanting his name.
Obama just hugged George. Awww… George!!! :( I will miss you!
Now I’m listening to a poem(?) that is being read by some woman in a red coat. I don’t know who she is. I just saw another shot of the crowd. It looks like a lot of people are leaving. Man—that’s going to take forever to get around. I can’t even imagine how the Metro is on this day… I shudder to think of that!
Ah—a shot of American flags. What a beautiful flag and what a wonderful country I live in… I love pomp and circumstance!
Some old guy, Rev. Joseph Lowery, is now giving the benediction.
Yes, Rev. Lowery, God DOES have the whole world in His hands. And that belief is what gives me hope! Hope in all things! God bless and protect our country…
Shouldn’t Barack’s daughters Malia and Sasha be in school? Lol Just kidding…just kidding… :) ;)
The reverend is doing some funny rhyming talking about different colors of people. Lol oook…
Lowery apparently 87 years old. Like they say, “Black don’t crack!” LoL He looks pretty good for that age.
Now the National Anthem is being sung. Beautiful song. There’s the flag again…awesome.
Now the new President and everyone else is clearing out.
I love the Marine Corps Band!
Ugh—there’s Hillary Clinton—soon to be Secretary of State if everything goes through. She wishes this were her inauguration day. Ha! I hope that never happens.
Now Obama is about to see George and Laura off. The Bushes are going to get on a helicopter in a minute. They'll be off to Texas afterwards... And there's Dick and Lynn Cheney. Bye, Bushes and Cheneys! :(
Well, my coverage is over for now...
There are so many people in D.C.! It’s a sea of Americans.
Aretha Franklin singing “My Country Tis of Thee” ????? Why? Baaaad….ugh! It sounds like a man (who couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket) doing a Saturday Night Live-style joke version of a singer. Wow.
Rick Warren is saying the invocation. Screaming during a prayer?
So many people don’t understand the magnitude of this choice of President. Some just see that he is a black man. This point is partially explained by remembering my former students’ excitement over his election win -- for no other reason than because he is black—not because of his accomplishments in life, intelligence, or hard work—only his skin color. This is because my students’ parents and so many other Americans are uninformed and, by choice, do not care to look at policy, ideology, or beliefs but rather, they identify and focus only on color.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is wonderful for history to be made by having an African-American President, but I could have waited another four years for one I could actually agree with and have “hope” in. Same with a woman President – it will be a wonderful addition to United States history eventually, but I don’t want one for just history’s sake; I want one who will actually be good for the country.
I did not want Barack Obama to be President. Heck, I didn’t even want McCain! But I will support Obama only because he is going to be in charge of my country.
And here we go right now—Obama is about to take the Oath of Office. History. He’s officially President.
[a couple minutes later…] Now he is giving his inaugural address.
As I’m listening to the address and seeing shots of the throng, I’m thinking…well, at least with all this support Barack has, there won’t be so much whining and complaining. It was so annoying to hear people complain about George. I loved George. He was a good President and did so much to keep our country safe.
Break from thought---please, Barack ---promises, promises. Health care and other stuff he’s promising right now…
Anyway, back to what I was saying about George W. Bush. He protected our country, and he is a great American in my eyes. So many people –especially Democrats, of course—complained and complained until they were blue in the face. I’m happy to say that even though many Republicans like myself didn’t want Barack Obama to be President, I guarantee that we won’t react to Obama’s Presidency like many fools did to Bush’s Presidency. I believe we have more class than that. Sure, there will be some people against Obama who will go nuts; there are always nutty people who can’t control themselves, but I say that we Republican people with brains and understanding will not whine and disrespect the new President.
Still listening to Barack’s inaugural address… Right now he’s giving a message to other nations…talking about our support and our understanding of the suffering of many nations. Now he’s talking about our heroes. “Guardians of liberty.”
I just checked my Facebook while history is continuing to play out on television… hehe
It’s 20-something degrees in D.C. right now. A throng of people fill the National Mall all the way down to the Washington Monument. There’s no official count or even a guess as to how many people are there right now. According to FOX News, in 1965, there were 1.2 million people out for the LBJ inauguration—the most in history. This inauguration might beat that.
Obama just finished his speech.
People are waving American flags and chanting his name.
Obama just hugged George. Awww… George!!! :( I will miss you!
Now I’m listening to a poem(?) that is being read by some woman in a red coat. I don’t know who she is. I just saw another shot of the crowd. It looks like a lot of people are leaving. Man—that’s going to take forever to get around. I can’t even imagine how the Metro is on this day… I shudder to think of that!
Ah—a shot of American flags. What a beautiful flag and what a wonderful country I live in… I love pomp and circumstance!
Some old guy, Rev. Joseph Lowery, is now giving the benediction.
Yes, Rev. Lowery, God DOES have the whole world in His hands. And that belief is what gives me hope! Hope in all things! God bless and protect our country…
Shouldn’t Barack’s daughters Malia and Sasha be in school? Lol Just kidding…just kidding… :) ;)
The reverend is doing some funny rhyming talking about different colors of people. Lol oook…
Lowery apparently 87 years old. Like they say, “Black don’t crack!” LoL He looks pretty good for that age.
Now the National Anthem is being sung. Beautiful song. There’s the flag again…awesome.
Now the new President and everyone else is clearing out.
I love the Marine Corps Band!
Ugh—there’s Hillary Clinton—soon to be Secretary of State if everything goes through. She wishes this were her inauguration day. Ha! I hope that never happens.
Now Obama is about to see George and Laura off. The Bushes are going to get on a helicopter in a minute. They'll be off to Texas afterwards... And there's Dick and Lynn Cheney. Bye, Bushes and Cheneys! :(
Well, my coverage is over for now...
$chool Wa$te
Posted by
Kristy Zabel's Blog
comments (0)
At the moment, I have no internet, so I'm blogging on WordPad, and then I'll post it on the following blog on my page when the modem arrives in the mail.
Today's subject: $chool Wa$te
Schools this year--more than any year I had ever been aware of previously--claim to be majorly pressed for money. 'They' say the coming year is going to be even worse. My question is WHY? I realize that times are hard for most Americans these days, but we're still paying taxes and schools are still getting money (albeit less than before). In some Florida districts, schools are planning to get rid of extracurricular activities like softball--a less popular sport. I'd love to see them try to get rid of football; parents wouldn't hear of that! Even unviersities aren't immune. The University of Florida threatened to get rid of Korean language classes due to money issues. Apparently, those plans are still pending. So why are we having to get rid of certain classes, sports, and clubs? Answer: The school board doesn't know how to manage money--let alone schools.
What are our school board members and schools doing with the money they get? The answer to this one is plain and simple: They're wasting it.
Right now, the people in charge--or the almighty 'they'-- are punishing students--especially those who actually care about their future. A year or two ago, they got rid of busing for students in magnet programs. Now there's a great idea...let's stop busing the smart kids to school just to save money on gas! Keeping driven children out of magnet programs, extracurricular activities, and advanced classes is NOT the way to save on money. But wait--there's more! As a senior intern this past fall 2008 semester, I was appalled to learn that the school I was working at was watering down their soap, and it's not like that soap was even purchased by the school either--it was purchased by the parents! So why water it down to 'save money' when it's not even saving school dollars? Healthy and smart! Another brilliant setup I noticed at the school was found in the lunchroom. The lunchroom staff fills styrofoam cups with whatever unhealthy food is being served that day, and then the kids are supposed to put those cups on top of styrofoam trays. I've got an idea--why don't the lunchladies just dish the food onto the trays and get rid of the styrofoam cups once and for all! Not only are those styrofoam cups costly to schools money-wise, but they're also costly to the environment. As for the styrofoam trays, it would be interesting to see if it would be more cost-effective to just get plastic trays and wash them, but I'll leave that research to someone else.
So you may be (or should be) asking yourself, "Besides getting rid of styrofoam cups, what can be done to cut spending without cutting all the special classes and extracurricular activities?" For starters, let's get rid of the school board or at the very least drastically reduce their control and, of course, pay. They have proven themselves to be less than brilliant when it comes to knowing what to cut, how to handle budgets, and anything and everything connected with schools and money. Their salaries will be a great addition to school budgets. But who will be in charge if the school board is dismissed? Here's an easy one--parents and teachers. Now there's an idea--having people who actually know what's going on being in charge. Let's change the previous school board mass into a larger PTA-like body. Since only interested, educated, and involved parents and teachers will participate, there should be no fear of careless voting on important decisions that will impact student learning.
Besides the change in power, there are simple in-school money saving options. There are the aforementioned styrofoam cups, but schools also waste a lot of money on paper. Too many copies are made because worksheets are overused. If the budget is really as tight as it is portrayed as being, why not get rid of the FCAT--if only for a while? My sister came up with that suggestion, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Being as involved in schools as I have been, I know firsthand how the FCAT has the potential to squeeze its way into the curriculum and almost totally push out any chance of having fun and meaningful lessons that should be taught on a regular basis. It's not that the test doesn't have things on it that kids don't need to know, it's the approach that teachers are forced (yes, forced) to take to drill the information into the heads of the children, who are ready to burst by the time the test comes around. It creates an unnecessary burden on teachers and students. In addition, it doesn't allow for much leeway when it comes to teachers planning lessons. I could go on about the FCAT, but I digress and will return to my suggestions for money saving options.
Another option is to stop building new schools just on a whim. Of course, this urge could be quelled by getting rid of the build-happy school board members, but I'm including it on my list anyway. Trimming down the professional development requirements would also be a smart way to save money. Oftentimes, those professional development sessions feature old news--things that are taught in colleges and universities. I should know! As a recent graduate from the University of Central Florida (elementary education major) and professional development attendee, I can honestly say I learned very little to almost no new information at all whenever I went to local schools' professional development sessions. The information consisted of topics and suggestions that I had already heard in my college courses. Granted, there are older teachers who may be unfamiliar with some things, but a lot of the information is common sense! If it isn't, all those teachers have to do is ask a colleague for help.
Well, this long blog contains only a start to the possibilities that schools should reach for in an effort to achieve a setup that is based on more common sense, less money, and fewer high-falutin' school leaders. I'm sure I will get riled enough to continue this at a later time. ;) Thanks for reading! Come back soon.
Today's subject: $chool Wa$te
Schools this year--more than any year I had ever been aware of previously--claim to be majorly pressed for money. 'They' say the coming year is going to be even worse. My question is WHY? I realize that times are hard for most Americans these days, but we're still paying taxes and schools are still getting money (albeit less than before). In some Florida districts, schools are planning to get rid of extracurricular activities like softball--a less popular sport. I'd love to see them try to get rid of football; parents wouldn't hear of that! Even unviersities aren't immune. The University of Florida threatened to get rid of Korean language classes due to money issues. Apparently, those plans are still pending. So why are we having to get rid of certain classes, sports, and clubs? Answer: The school board doesn't know how to manage money--let alone schools.
What are our school board members and schools doing with the money they get? The answer to this one is plain and simple: They're wasting it.
Right now, the people in charge--or the almighty 'they'-- are punishing students--especially those who actually care about their future. A year or two ago, they got rid of busing for students in magnet programs. Now there's a great idea...let's stop busing the smart kids to school just to save money on gas! Keeping driven children out of magnet programs, extracurricular activities, and advanced classes is NOT the way to save on money. But wait--there's more! As a senior intern this past fall 2008 semester, I was appalled to learn that the school I was working at was watering down their soap, and it's not like that soap was even purchased by the school either--it was purchased by the parents! So why water it down to 'save money' when it's not even saving school dollars? Healthy and smart! Another brilliant setup I noticed at the school was found in the lunchroom. The lunchroom staff fills styrofoam cups with whatever unhealthy food is being served that day, and then the kids are supposed to put those cups on top of styrofoam trays. I've got an idea--why don't the lunchladies just dish the food onto the trays and get rid of the styrofoam cups once and for all! Not only are those styrofoam cups costly to schools money-wise, but they're also costly to the environment. As for the styrofoam trays, it would be interesting to see if it would be more cost-effective to just get plastic trays and wash them, but I'll leave that research to someone else.
So you may be (or should be) asking yourself, "Besides getting rid of styrofoam cups, what can be done to cut spending without cutting all the special classes and extracurricular activities?" For starters, let's get rid of the school board or at the very least drastically reduce their control and, of course, pay. They have proven themselves to be less than brilliant when it comes to knowing what to cut, how to handle budgets, and anything and everything connected with schools and money. Their salaries will be a great addition to school budgets. But who will be in charge if the school board is dismissed? Here's an easy one--parents and teachers. Now there's an idea--having people who actually know what's going on being in charge. Let's change the previous school board mass into a larger PTA-like body. Since only interested, educated, and involved parents and teachers will participate, there should be no fear of careless voting on important decisions that will impact student learning.
Besides the change in power, there are simple in-school money saving options. There are the aforementioned styrofoam cups, but schools also waste a lot of money on paper. Too many copies are made because worksheets are overused. If the budget is really as tight as it is portrayed as being, why not get rid of the FCAT--if only for a while? My sister came up with that suggestion, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Being as involved in schools as I have been, I know firsthand how the FCAT has the potential to squeeze its way into the curriculum and almost totally push out any chance of having fun and meaningful lessons that should be taught on a regular basis. It's not that the test doesn't have things on it that kids don't need to know, it's the approach that teachers are forced (yes, forced) to take to drill the information into the heads of the children, who are ready to burst by the time the test comes around. It creates an unnecessary burden on teachers and students. In addition, it doesn't allow for much leeway when it comes to teachers planning lessons. I could go on about the FCAT, but I digress and will return to my suggestions for money saving options.
Another option is to stop building new schools just on a whim. Of course, this urge could be quelled by getting rid of the build-happy school board members, but I'm including it on my list anyway. Trimming down the professional development requirements would also be a smart way to save money. Oftentimes, those professional development sessions feature old news--things that are taught in colleges and universities. I should know! As a recent graduate from the University of Central Florida (elementary education major) and professional development attendee, I can honestly say I learned very little to almost no new information at all whenever I went to local schools' professional development sessions. The information consisted of topics and suggestions that I had already heard in my college courses. Granted, there are older teachers who may be unfamiliar with some things, but a lot of the information is common sense! If it isn't, all those teachers have to do is ask a colleague for help.
Well, this long blog contains only a start to the possibilities that schools should reach for in an effort to achieve a setup that is based on more common sense, less money, and fewer high-falutin' school leaders. I'm sure I will get riled enough to continue this at a later time. ;) Thanks for reading! Come back soon.
Teaching Girls and Boys Separately -- Good or Bad?
Posted by
Kristy Zabel's Blog
comments (0)
Read this, and then see if you agree with my take on things. Leave comments! :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=2c738e6056cb2eeb&ex=1362027600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
On one hand, it probably is a good idea because, yes, there are obvious differences between how they learn and express themselves--and many examples were given in the article (like light, temperature, and even use of crayon colors). However, if we continue to break it down and separate different students, we're eventually going to end up on an individualized system---where it's one teacher per one student. Since this obviously isn't practical nor possible (since we struggle to get one good teacher per 18-30 kids)---we have to accept that kids are going to have to be grouped together at some point and in some fashion. People used to (and some still do) complain about keeping children with certain disabilities out of the mainstream classrooms, so now, we're required to include them, and teachers have to create an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) for those students to make sure they're making progress according to their abilities.
The reality is, once the kids grow up, they're going to have to work in a coed environment--both at work and in their personals lives. Apparently, it is already hard enough for men and women to understand each other, so how would separating them at an early age really benefit them in the long run? I believe they should have coed classrooms, where the teacher recognizes the differences of each student--whether it means boy or girl, black or white, fast or slow, or whatever--and that teacher uses that knowledge of differences to create a positive learning experience for each child. Doing different things to cottle each child's needs should be done in an effort to individualize the education of every student in a mixed student environment.
Do I believe separating them is going to help both in the here-in-now and the future? No. Sure, there is a list of things that might benefit them slightly in the present (i.e., classroom lighting and temperature), but is that going to make a big enough impact on how they learn now without depriving them of normal social interaction and learning about each other and how to work with each other? I don't personally think so.
In reaction to the part that said the South has a more "conservative view" of gender roles...What we need to do, instead of separating the kids, is find teachers who know what they're doing and who don't promote or favor one gender over the other, or one culture over another, or whatever the case may be.
By separating boys from girls, I think the people are using those differences against the children. And if you have a teacher that believes radical thoughts one way or another about one gender and then shares those ideas through his/her teachings, the kids are not going to benefit from that. It's going to create a further divided society---actually, even if the teacher doesn't have radical teachings, it can create that sort of dynamic.
Nowadays, they tell us future teachers (like a million times a week) to use cooperative learning--where children of different abilities can work together and feed off of each other's strengths. I think this should apply to gender as well. If boys "can see action better" than girls, but the girls can see the "color and texture," then why not put them together to create the picture you want them to see as a whole?
To sell single-sex classrooms to parents by only providing the positives is not honest. How about giving them the positives and the negatives? Sax apparently has a problem with looking at research that disagrees with his views.
Anyway, the fact is, students are resilient and will conform to whatever is thrown their way--consider the one-room schoolhouses that used to exist. However, whatever they're being "thrown into" is not always the best way to go, of course. And in this case, single-sex classes are not the best way to go.
Ugh---I'm reading the article as I respond, and I just read the one part that says, "tidy science experiment: pouring red water, blue oil and clear syrup into a plastic cup to test which has the greatest density, then confirming their results with the firsthand knowledge that when you're doing the dishes after your mother makes fried chicken, the oil always settles on top of the water in the sink." What the heck? This is part of the problem!!! You are, as a teacher, supposed to use examples that bring aspects of the students' experiences into your teaching when it's applicable, but to say something gender specific like that is dumb. How about saying, "like when your mom or dad washes dishes after cooking"---not just the mom, Ward Cleaver (from "Leave It to Beaver")!!!
As for the success that has apparently been generated just by parents enrolling students in a single-sex class...how can we say it's not just the placebo effect? In other words, the parents, teachers, and/or students are led to believe the children's education system is better, so they play into that and benefit. It is said that when students--like those from a low socioeconomic status--get put in a new building with new things, they are more likely to treat it better than they would a run-down school. So, since this is a new teaching style, what's to say the students (and teachers) aren't reacting in a positive wayy just because it's a new system with new promises? And like the article states, those positive results were mostly seen where the higher-performing teachers and students were a big part of the active members in the single-sex classrooms. This goes back to the fact that the lower-performing teachers and students (especially the latter) are not often offered and/or exposed to things that are said to improve learning.
--What's with the inclusion of the 'dead rat in the wall' part? Ew.--
I totally agree with Giedd here--- "Giedd suggests the same is true when educators use gender alone to assign educational experiences for kids. Yes, you'll get more students who favor cooperative learning in the girls' room, and more students who enjoy competitive learning in the boys', but you won't do very well. Says Giedd, 'There are just too many exceptions to the rule.' " Definitely. What works for some children does not work for all, which is why teachers are told to engage all of the different kinds of learning styles and strengths in their lessons--for the benefit of each individual student.
A thought-provoking article--no? :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=2c738e6056cb2eeb&ex=1362027600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
On one hand, it probably is a good idea because, yes, there are obvious differences between how they learn and express themselves--and many examples were given in the article (like light, temperature, and even use of crayon colors). However, if we continue to break it down and separate different students, we're eventually going to end up on an individualized system---where it's one teacher per one student. Since this obviously isn't practical nor possible (since we struggle to get one good teacher per 18-30 kids)---we have to accept that kids are going to have to be grouped together at some point and in some fashion. People used to (and some still do) complain about keeping children with certain disabilities out of the mainstream classrooms, so now, we're required to include them, and teachers have to create an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) for those students to make sure they're making progress according to their abilities.
The reality is, once the kids grow up, they're going to have to work in a coed environment--both at work and in their personals lives. Apparently, it is already hard enough for men and women to understand each other, so how would separating them at an early age really benefit them in the long run? I believe they should have coed classrooms, where the teacher recognizes the differences of each student--whether it means boy or girl, black or white, fast or slow, or whatever--and that teacher uses that knowledge of differences to create a positive learning experience for each child. Doing different things to cottle each child's needs should be done in an effort to individualize the education of every student in a mixed student environment.
Do I believe separating them is going to help both in the here-in-now and the future? No. Sure, there is a list of things that might benefit them slightly in the present (i.e., classroom lighting and temperature), but is that going to make a big enough impact on how they learn now without depriving them of normal social interaction and learning about each other and how to work with each other? I don't personally think so.
In reaction to the part that said the South has a more "conservative view" of gender roles...What we need to do, instead of separating the kids, is find teachers who know what they're doing and who don't promote or favor one gender over the other, or one culture over another, or whatever the case may be.
By separating boys from girls, I think the people are using those differences against the children. And if you have a teacher that believes radical thoughts one way or another about one gender and then shares those ideas through his/her teachings, the kids are not going to benefit from that. It's going to create a further divided society---actually, even if the teacher doesn't have radical teachings, it can create that sort of dynamic.
Nowadays, they tell us future teachers (like a million times a week) to use cooperative learning--where children of different abilities can work together and feed off of each other's strengths. I think this should apply to gender as well. If boys "can see action better" than girls, but the girls can see the "color and texture," then why not put them together to create the picture you want them to see as a whole?
To sell single-sex classrooms to parents by only providing the positives is not honest. How about giving them the positives and the negatives? Sax apparently has a problem with looking at research that disagrees with his views.
Anyway, the fact is, students are resilient and will conform to whatever is thrown their way--consider the one-room schoolhouses that used to exist. However, whatever they're being "thrown into" is not always the best way to go, of course. And in this case, single-sex classes are not the best way to go.
Ugh---I'm reading the article as I respond, and I just read the one part that says, "tidy science experiment: pouring red water, blue oil and clear syrup into a plastic cup to test which has the greatest density, then confirming their results with the firsthand knowledge that when you're doing the dishes after your mother makes fried chicken, the oil always settles on top of the water in the sink." What the heck? This is part of the problem!!! You are, as a teacher, supposed to use examples that bring aspects of the students' experiences into your teaching when it's applicable, but to say something gender specific like that is dumb. How about saying, "like when your mom or dad washes dishes after cooking"---not just the mom, Ward Cleaver (from "Leave It to Beaver")!!!
As for the success that has apparently been generated just by parents enrolling students in a single-sex class...how can we say it's not just the placebo effect? In other words, the parents, teachers, and/or students are led to believe the children's education system is better, so they play into that and benefit. It is said that when students--like those from a low socioeconomic status--get put in a new building with new things, they are more likely to treat it better than they would a run-down school. So, since this is a new teaching style, what's to say the students (and teachers) aren't reacting in a positive wayy just because it's a new system with new promises? And like the article states, those positive results were mostly seen where the higher-performing teachers and students were a big part of the active members in the single-sex classrooms. This goes back to the fact that the lower-performing teachers and students (especially the latter) are not often offered and/or exposed to things that are said to improve learning.
--What's with the inclusion of the 'dead rat in the wall' part? Ew.--
I totally agree with Giedd here--- "Giedd suggests the same is true when educators use gender alone to assign educational experiences for kids. Yes, you'll get more students who favor cooperative learning in the girls' room, and more students who enjoy competitive learning in the boys', but you won't do very well. Says Giedd, 'There are just too many exceptions to the rule.' " Definitely. What works for some children does not work for all, which is why teachers are told to engage all of the different kinds of learning styles and strengths in their lessons--for the benefit of each individual student.
A thought-provoking article--no? :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
