"School" Implies "Out of the House"

So, this following topic was not on my previous list of upcoming tidbits, but I thought it was quite worthy of a post. Part of the motivation for this entry comes from across the street, where our nosy neighbors with overactive imaginations have decided that home-schooling their daughters is the way to go.

Since the beginning of time- or since I have been aware of it- families have participated in home-schooling as an alternative to public or private education. This institution is certainly beneficial in a variety of ways, especially if the students are unable (because of a physical, social, or mental condition) to participate adequately in a public education setting. Also, parents who feel very strongly that sending their children to a school might in some way interfere with their parenting goals can fall back on home-schooling to educate their offspring. Thus, let me reiterate... there are advantages.

However, I'm not sure I am a huge supporter of the process. I am most vehemently opposed to it simply because of my neighbors. I know that sounds foolish. It is. But I can make an extremely good argument for public education by using them as an example.

From what I can see and have heard, they have basically limited their daughter's interactions with other kids to home-schooling play-groups and dance lessons. The girls don't play with any of the neighborhood children, and although they are out in the yard at times, the family still has the reputation of hiding behind their curtains and spying on their neighbors.

This is the wrong way to go. Why do I say this? Because school isn't just about classes, homework, and teachers. Rather, it's also about the millions of lessons that are learned by social interaction in the hallways and at the lunch table. Children learn to socialize, analyze, and mature by talking, laughing, and observing. When you don't allow a child to attend a social institution such as a school, you are robbing them of important lessons which are absolutely vital to being a successful person later in life.

I want to address two hypothetical (and yet predictable) complaints towards my opinion.

1). Schools contain a high percentage of negative social lessons that will damage both my child's moral code/proper development and the methods by which I have raised my child.

Yes, I cannot lie. There are plenty of negative lessons in school. Whether it's wrong information about sex, tough lessons about adolescent relationships, or the complicated inner-workings of teenage friendships, your children will encounter a good deal of hardships. However, if your children never encounter these obstacles and situations, they will be unprepared to deal with them as adults. School is an opportunity to hone social skills and learn to function appropriately in mainstream society. Keeping your child out of school deprives them of the "trial and error" part of his or her life, and arguably they will be much more naive and unprepared to deal with other adults who had the chance to mature socially.

2). My children can learn all of their social skills by interacting with other home-schooled children.

True, some social interaction is better than none. However, I must ask: what type of children are being home-schooled? I ask this because, if these children all come from similar families (for example, let's say middle-class orthodox Christian), then they are simply reaffirming the lessons they learn at home. Homogeny doesn't allow for an appropriate spectrum of experiences to help children grow into citizens who can deal with the many different components of an adult life. Schools increase the chance of interaction with students of varied backgrounds, which expands the child's social knowledge. Sure, not all schools are heterogeneous either. But it's a better bet than home-schooling.

There will always be reasons to home-school. But it is perhaps more compelling to consider the richness of a public education.

Schools Are Hot-Beds of Debate

So, I've been racking my brain as to which topic I should address next. And it is blatantly apparent that education has its share of debates and controversy and discussion. And of course, it'd be much easier to engage in said seminars if people actually followed my blog... hint hint to everyone except Mr. Crowder.

But here's a fun little list of upcoming topics (perhaps) on my blog of amazing-ness:

1). National standards... feasible?

2). SOLs... destroying effective teaching?

3). Sex education... what's the best approach?

4). Grading... how... to... do... it... well...

The Great Battle for Professionalism

I live in the Facebook age. The Myspace generation. The multi-tasking, technology-driven, Blackberry-toting, text-messaging generation of adolescents. And now, as we are graduating and pursuing high-profile public jobs, we are seeing the side effects of such social innovations... drunken pictures and nasty wall posts don't do much for our images.

I remember, back in English class sophomore year of high school, that my teacher mentioned getting professional email addresses. One of the students had a particularly juvenile account name, and so my teacher made a comment about adapting our accounts to professional stature... although not in such words. The point was made, though.

Naturally, a lot of us mature and begin thinking about our futures... at some point. There will always be a whole slew of students who have to spend the week after college graduation deleting embarrassing photos of themselves from the Internet. But we learn our lessons, for the most parts.

However, some of us don't. Recently, I have been contacting students about subleasing their apartments for the upcoming semester, as I will only be at my school for one more term. One of the responses I received was from the father of the student. He gave me some information about the apartment, the complex, and also the other girls living in the apartment.

That's all well and good. It is a little weird that he wasn't having his daughter handle the subleasing.

And then... the problem was made obvious. His email address. "Coochdoc."

Now, it's one thing that his last name is Couture. It's quite another that he might use that name (or his profession?) in such a low manner in a professional setting. Did he not think I would realize the inappropriate account name?

Honestly, it's fairly ridiculous. This man is a father.

And thus, that begins the whole argument about our actions and our image. I'm sure quite a few of us want to argue that our pictures, wall posts, and text messages don't have any effect on how we are viewed as professionals and career experts. However, those things CAN (but that doesn't mean they will) bite us in the ass.

Look at it this way: if the only thing a potential employer has seen of us is our resume, our email address, and twenty pictures of spring break with that Jamaican hottie, we aren't putting up a good front. Sure, it's not that I really like saying all that... I want to live my life and have no consequences from doing so.

But my parents have talked to me about weight, and its effect on my image. If my weight can lose me a job opportunity, so can all of our frat party mistakes.

I feel like I am relatively conscious of my actions. But I still have to ask... if a picture of me with a cocktail surfaces on a potential employer's computer, and that picture was taken after my 21st birthday... what's the big deal?

Are some employers judging too harshly?

And, if things like college partying and good times with friends weigh so heavily on future employment, why are we even allowed to enjoy those adventures? It's a balance. Have the fun. Hide the habits. And destroy the evidence.

Being a good employee and role model doesn't mean having to sit at home on Saturday night with a few cats.

School. Internment Camp or Commune?

I'm fairly sure that I do not need to reiterate the horrors of World War II and the camps created by Hitler's genocidal and racist plans. We have all studied that era; one that we hope will not come again in the history of humankind.

Even Stalin had his gulags... I suppose that all countries and social groups have their periods of which later generations are shameful.

The point is, as students in history class we learned how these internment camps operated. In some, death was the goal. In others, segregation and disrespect were common. Whatever the type of camp, the term "internment" evokes a feeling of controlled behavior and loss of freedoms.

How many kids feel as if their school is that way today?

Discipline and behavior management are important topics for administrators and teachers. No teacher wants to feel vulnerable and weak in front of students; we all want to have a respected position among our students. Otherwise, what learning is going to take place if the teacher can't even get the students to quiet down?

However, some schools have taken this concept of management way TOO far. School becomes a zone of a bazillion rules and practically no lee-way for students. Cell phones are banned, soft drinks are discouraged, lunch areas are closed off and patrolled. Tardy slips are not given out in deserving situations (like finishing a test after the bell rings), hall passes are near impossible to come by, and security guards are stationed at every door.

This is ridiculous.

There are certainly reasons why these measures have been implemented. Plenty of schools face problems with gangs, fighting, drug use, etc. I am certainly not saying that no rules is the way to go. However, what is TOO much?

My alma mater, a fairly affluent high school in Chesapeake, Virginia, got a new principal within the last few years. Since then, I have heard stories of her overdone rule systems and ridiculous regulations.

Let me rant a little bit. Understand, of course, that she didn't cause all of the problems with behavior management; some of these rules were already in place.

1). Students should be able to purchase soft drinks during the day at school. It's not the school system's responsibility to manage students' diets (except for providing meals), and teachers can simply limit hall passes to the drink machines.

2). Needing a permission slip to take another senior to the senior prom (i.e. both of you are seniors) is absolutely ridiculous. Why the hell is that necessary? You are BOTH seniors!

3). Giving students barely enough time to get to class is a pain in the ass. Sure, maybe you're trying to minimize lolly-gagging, but at the same time you're forcing students to rush everywhere.

Basically, my old school is run like a prison. And that just isn't right. First of all, try obeying that ever-present cardinal rule of adolescence: if you ban it, they will do it. Kids are all about rebellion. So limiting their every movement and proving you don't trust them will only provoke them to have bad attitudes about behavior. That bad attitude can't be helpful in building a strong school community.

Besides... can't all you administrators remember the days when you were in school? School isn't just about passing tests and making SOL cuts. It's about enjoying life, socializing, and learning the all-important life lessons from dealing with other people.

Call Me Ishmael... Or Call Me Censored Literature.

Ahh, censorship.

It has its all-important place in many areas of media, but in one particular field it seems it has become absolutely ridiculous; and that field is literature (and its place in the classroom).

I remember quite vividly some of the commentary by my 10th-grade English teacher when she was discussing PABBIS (Parents Against Bad Books in School), and her comments have very much affected my ideas on the matter. Over the years, I have decided that censorship has become misunderstood in educational contexts.

Censorship is not useless. Sure, there is no earthly reason why students should read Cosmo for English or tabloids for history. The books in the classroom need to have true value for the students. And that is exactly why teachers want to use novels like Lord of the Flies. There is some value.

However, it is my understanding of PABBIS (through the impression given to me by my former teacher) that basically every book is bad... simply because there is bad language or suggestion. For example, one may not be able to use Gone With the Wind because there are sex scenes and the word "damn." (I do apologize, Clark Gable.)

This is a simple case of contextual misunderstanding. One thing that people are quick to forget is that not all books were written in the gross political correctness that we are so used to today. Some books were written in highly-racist times, others in eras of religious fervor. However, we are so quick to judge books by contemporary standards... and what are we losing by doing so?

A fabulous book which I have studied in numerous classes is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. It is a wonderfully-simple book about the trials of an African community which is suddenly faced with Western influence.

As great as that book is, Achebe wrote an article addressing the issue of censorship. He discussed in particular Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, pointing out that teaching such a book in school reinforces inequality issues and racism and stereotypes. Basically, there is a negative influence on children. For all of us familiar with Conrad's work, we know there are definitely racist remarks in there.

However, we understand that Conrad lived in an era which encouraged racism and separation. Thus, we see the value in studying his works and opinions, but we know to distinguish the rights and wrongs for our children and students.

So, my fellow educators, there is your problem. We forget to mention that part of teaching literature in school is actually TEACHING it. We aren't setting these kids free to read possibly controversial books without taking the time to explain things to them. Sure, they need to read all that classic literature- Tom Sawyer, Heart of Darkness. But if we, as educators, make sure to describe contextual beliefs and era-produced attitudes, they can still come away from class as informed (and un-prejudiced) citizens.

Teachers. Teach the books. Explain the material. Prosper.

Red Pens Are the Work of the Grading Devil

I don't actually agree with the title of my blog. But it sounded delightfully evil and fun and I just HAD to use it. Hopefully all you red pen Nazis won't get offended.

So, I have been told (as the exemplary education student that I am), that red pens should not be used in the classroom. The reason for this is that these pens, which emit the bright and stereotype-ridden hue of failure, lower children's self-esteem. I believe this is because students are automatically discouraged when they are handed back papers riddled with red ink... there is an automatic feeling of failure and inadequacy.

I can understand that students react to red pen in this manner. After years of experiencing brief notes and big Xs on papers, students are trained to see red pen as the sign of inaccuracy and "points off." But red pen should NOT be banned for these reasons. Here is why:

The first reason has to do with the pen itself. Red pen isn't the culprit... it's just the tool of the teacher. And the teacher needs to make sure that he or she defines the manner in which he or she assesses- including the moods of such assessments. This may sound confusing. What I am saying is that if teachers create a classroom atmosphere in which assessment is formative, often, open, understood, and open for student-teacher communication, red pen shouldn't be an issue at all.

To start with, the teacher needs to spend some time at the beginning of the year addressing assessment. During this forum discussion (where the students can and should participate), the teacher should express his or her procedures for assessing, including how students can be involved in the process and what part feedback and revisions play in assignments. An important point needs to be made- that when a student receives a graded paper back, they should not immediately be discouraged or annoyed at red marks, but rather that they should look at the marks as steps towards perfection. Red pen is not the problem. It's the students' reactions ("I'm inadequate", "I failed", "I don't even care or want to try to improve") that need to be changed, not the color of pen used.

The next issue having to do with red pen is accountability. Sure, there are plenty of sources out there which stress student accountability in doing all types of things, from homework to class discussions. But there's a whole lot of weight on the teacher to "make" the class successful or "push" the class towards curricular goals. At the end of the day, the teacher is judged on the success of his or her students. That makes sense, but only if it's being done in an appropriate manner.

Whoever has argued that red pens lower self-esteem have a) bad experiences with assessment and b) habits of babying students. Seriously, kids are capable of so much; don't baby them through life!

What are we teaching kids if we don't challenge them, don't hold them accountable, and don't show them negative consequences? We are teaching them they can slide their ways through life, and that lesson doesn't belong in school.

Students MUST be accountable. There's only so much a teacher can do to help students and encourage success. If students don't put in an effort, it's not fair. It seems that there are plenty of ways today to take the blame off of students, and that's not right. Sure, they can't do everything alone; but neither can teachers.

To Bachelor's, or Not to Bachelor's?

This is going to sound really conceited right off the bat.

A couple of weeks ago, I mailed out announcements to family and friends to inform them of my impending (ignore the dooms-day feel of that word) graduation from James Madison University. I was receiving a Bachelor's of Science in "Interdisciplinary Social Science" with minors in Secondary Education and French.

The ceremony was great- excepting an overly-egotistical keynotes speaker whose main focus was his "green" lifestyle, and not the awesomeness of our 2009 graduation. Note to self... keep ridiculous personal information and political statements to a minimum when orating during a celebration of other people's accomplishments.

Now here's my selfish tid-bit: although I have received some excellent gifts, I haven't received the volume of gifts or cards as I did from my high school graduation. At least, I don't think I have. Now, maybe the post office is backed up, or the dog ate my cards, but this phenomenon led me to ask a very important question:

In our society, is high school graduation more celebrated than college graduation?

I find that this question opens up several different cans of worms. For one, I come from a population of students (and families) where college is the norm. The expected. That all-important keg-driven four years where you wind up 15 pounds heavier and much wiser (at least on the topic of mixing drinks). For us, yes, it's a big deal.

But there is a whole other side to the story. For families who don't expect their children to attend college, high school graduation is a huge celebration. Or, for families who have experienced a high degree of chaos, problems, or trauma, graduation from high school could be a true feat.

So now, we have two groups of people: those who expect college and those who don't. But I'm not sure there is always a direct correlation between these groups and their opinions of graduations. I'm in the "expecting college" group, and yet my high school graduation brought me much monetary praise and my college graduation did not. Are we still stuck in a society that treats secondary education as more important?

Hell no. I just am examining the issues.

My last point to make has to do with the educational system. As an up-and-coming teacher (a.k.a. superhero), I hope that I can help children succeed in pursuing post-secondary education. Our job field and society stress higher education. It's my duty to help children thrive (no matter what they choose after school)... but in wanting students to go to college:

Shouldn't we be celebrating college graduations as much as high school graduations?