In a brief analysis, the NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis) researched whether or not a recent push to build green and energy efficient schools in the Washington state area "made the grade" in reducing energy cost by 35%, reducing economic cost, reducing absenteeism, and producing improved test scores.
The analysis found that all of the schools included in the research, which had been open and operating for at least one year at the time of the study, failed to deliver the promises in all four categories!
In conclusion, the study offered several explanations for the disappointing, failing grades:
1. Reducing energy cost by 35% was surely based on the most optimistic statistics and estimates in order to help pass legislation for the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.
2. Reducing economic cost: the majority of the new green schools ended up costing significantly more than originally expected, which is largely due to new sets of standards that have to be met to be considered a "green" school. Many of these standards include unnecessary fixtures, such as bike racks, which are seldom utilized.
3. The idea of increasing test scores by providing more natural light seems shady (pun intended) from the beginning. The same goes for reducing the number of absences by increasing student health. It is hard to believe that anybody would assume that only physically sick students make up a school's absences.
Living in (Western) Europe for close to twelve years, I have adopted a green mindset. There, recycling is standard procedure and building green has been the norm.
When I started teaching at the high school level, I was shocked how much paper was thrown away on a weekly basis.
Together with my advanced marketing class, I founded "Recyclone" shortly thereafter.
The students developed a logo and a collection schedule, after creating and filling the various positions of the recycling operation. Later on, we started airing commercials and we started a scholarship fund for disadvantaged students with the recycling proceeds.
To this day, the project is flourishing and most students and faculty members view our "green" enterprise as an enrichment for the school and "something that was long overdue."
I think going "green" is a valuable and necessary mindset.
However, as we can easily see by looking at the NCPA's findings, it starts with the mindset: A school is only as green as its teachers and students!
The case of the mandated bike racks, which sit bike-less, is a perfect example.
Before spending millions on building green schools, we should focus on "building" green students!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Is Multiculturalism an Instrument of Social Control?
When we discuss the subject of multiculturalism and multicultural education, great attention has to be paid to the danger of misusing multiculturalism as a cover to promote Anglo-American culture.
Throughout world history, schools have been instruments of social control. In America's early days, schools main purpose was to promote Anglo-American culture, English language, and to produce God-fearing, productive citizens with conform mindsets.
To this day, schools are used to produce human capital up to par with the demands of the economy. The most common practices include tracking of students of low-economic status and the (over-)emphasize of being punctual.
The question is whether multicultural education is failing our students in terms of workplace preparedness?
I believe that every time society is faced with a challenge, all eyes immediately turn to our schools and its educators. Because our world becomes “smaller” every day, multicultural education has become essential in preparing students for the global workplace. Students should become aware of the fact that, apart from their own culture, a multitude of other cultures coexist and often represent values foreign to them. Aside from cultural differences, students need to gain insight on the various religious beliefs, which often directly impact a nation’s culture and society. Many of my students thought that the fact that women are not allowed to work in certain Muslim countries was a product of fiction. I am not sure what prompted these students to challenge this fact; the enraging aspect to me was the students’ indifference and lack of motivation to conduct personal research in order to find out for sure.
A common response is: “What does it really matter to me?" or "Why should I care?"
Given the fact that according to studies the number of gifted students in China is as large as the entire American population, I find this attitude to be very dangerous!
All blame cannot be cast on our students alone, though. I have observed an attitude in educators across grade levels: try to avoid any uncomfortable subjects, such as racism, religion, gender issues, poverty, etc.
I feel that the reasoning for this can be found in our own upbringing: after all, many of us were taught not to “rock the boat” as well and we have consequently bought into many mainstream beliefs and stereotypes. To ensure authentic multicultural education we, as educators, cannot be afraid of potential conflicts and discussions due to differing viewpoints. We have to find our own viewpoint and stand up for it. The value of general tolerance towards all human beings is often superficial, because it lacks the foundational knowledge of the other cultures derived from an honest evaluation. I believe that it is said superficial tolerance that ultimately promotes indifference. Whether multicultural education will prove effective largely depends on the educator’s willingness (or unwillingness) to challenge his own belief system and become a world citizen himself. It is very interesting to me how multicultural education is the “in-thing” as well as a taboo at the same time.
I believe that the concept of culturally relevant teaching holds great potential and provides teachers with a great stepping stone to provide all of their students with a more appropriate and effective education. While the idea of culturally relevant teaching was developed in order to increase learning outcomes of students of color, its underlying principle should build the foundation for classroom instruction in general. I would rephrase the term of culturally relevant teaching into individually relevant teaching. Many of the materials which were developed for culturally relevant teaching can provide a teacher (especially those who are culturally challenged) with great insight into their ethnically diverse classroom. However, the level of learning outcomes will predominantly depend on the teacher’s ability to relate to the individual student, as not every African American student has the same learning style, personality traits, or social background.
Throughout world history, schools have been instruments of social control. In America's early days, schools main purpose was to promote Anglo-American culture, English language, and to produce God-fearing, productive citizens with conform mindsets.
To this day, schools are used to produce human capital up to par with the demands of the economy. The most common practices include tracking of students of low-economic status and the (over-)emphasize of being punctual.
The question is whether multicultural education is failing our students in terms of workplace preparedness?
I believe that every time society is faced with a challenge, all eyes immediately turn to our schools and its educators. Because our world becomes “smaller” every day, multicultural education has become essential in preparing students for the global workplace. Students should become aware of the fact that, apart from their own culture, a multitude of other cultures coexist and often represent values foreign to them. Aside from cultural differences, students need to gain insight on the various religious beliefs, which often directly impact a nation’s culture and society. Many of my students thought that the fact that women are not allowed to work in certain Muslim countries was a product of fiction. I am not sure what prompted these students to challenge this fact; the enraging aspect to me was the students’ indifference and lack of motivation to conduct personal research in order to find out for sure.
A common response is: “What does it really matter to me?" or "Why should I care?"
Given the fact that according to studies the number of gifted students in China is as large as the entire American population, I find this attitude to be very dangerous!
All blame cannot be cast on our students alone, though. I have observed an attitude in educators across grade levels: try to avoid any uncomfortable subjects, such as racism, religion, gender issues, poverty, etc.
I feel that the reasoning for this can be found in our own upbringing: after all, many of us were taught not to “rock the boat” as well and we have consequently bought into many mainstream beliefs and stereotypes. To ensure authentic multicultural education we, as educators, cannot be afraid of potential conflicts and discussions due to differing viewpoints. We have to find our own viewpoint and stand up for it. The value of general tolerance towards all human beings is often superficial, because it lacks the foundational knowledge of the other cultures derived from an honest evaluation. I believe that it is said superficial tolerance that ultimately promotes indifference. Whether multicultural education will prove effective largely depends on the educator’s willingness (or unwillingness) to challenge his own belief system and become a world citizen himself. It is very interesting to me how multicultural education is the “in-thing” as well as a taboo at the same time.
I believe that the concept of culturally relevant teaching holds great potential and provides teachers with a great stepping stone to provide all of their students with a more appropriate and effective education. While the idea of culturally relevant teaching was developed in order to increase learning outcomes of students of color, its underlying principle should build the foundation for classroom instruction in general. I would rephrase the term of culturally relevant teaching into individually relevant teaching. Many of the materials which were developed for culturally relevant teaching can provide a teacher (especially those who are culturally challenged) with great insight into their ethnically diverse classroom. However, the level of learning outcomes will predominantly depend on the teacher’s ability to relate to the individual student, as not every African American student has the same learning style, personality traits, or social background.
Multicultural Education
The United States are a multicultural nation, should not multicultural education in our schools be a no-brainer?!
As with any hot-button issue, positions and mindsets vary tremendously.
A blog post, suggestively named "Pithissippi Burning," on the Nashville Scene Blog discusses an uprise in hate literature, discriminating against all minority cultures and propagating populist white race thought.
In the article "The Challenge of Multiculturalism," Samuel Taylor asserts that the conservative idea to unite the American nation by a common history is invalid, deeming it simply impossible to teach an all-inclusive history. In his opinion, the attempt to include all necessary viewpoints of historical events will lead to a feeling of confusion and uncertainty, rather than unity and self-esteem.
Where Taylor is at least trying to negotiate a possible multicultural approach to education, Paul Treanor simply deems multiculturalism to be "WRONG."
He feels that a multicultural society oppresses its minorities and migrants instead of helping them to assimilate. Further, he blames multiculturalism for making culture hereditary.
So, what's the verdict?
I believe that if a person, regardless of his or her ethnic heritage, does not have an individual standpoint, he is unable to analyze any other culture. It is therefore mandatory that our society as a whole focuses on helping our children develop a strong, healthy, and balanced self-image. Teachers are limited by the student’s family and social environment, which is supposed to provide the individual with the safety and emotional support needed to explore his inner self. Here lays the greatest challenge of them all: most parents are much more concerned about raising good children who fit the expectations of the majority culture rather than raising independent and self-reliant adults who will find their individual purpose in life. Sayings such as “Don’t rock the boat” or “Go with the flow” have become way too common and have lead to the mental conformity of our society.
As with any hot-button issue, positions and mindsets vary tremendously.
A blog post, suggestively named "Pithissippi Burning," on the Nashville Scene Blog discusses an uprise in hate literature, discriminating against all minority cultures and propagating populist white race thought.
In the article "The Challenge of Multiculturalism," Samuel Taylor asserts that the conservative idea to unite the American nation by a common history is invalid, deeming it simply impossible to teach an all-inclusive history. In his opinion, the attempt to include all necessary viewpoints of historical events will lead to a feeling of confusion and uncertainty, rather than unity and self-esteem.
Where Taylor is at least trying to negotiate a possible multicultural approach to education, Paul Treanor simply deems multiculturalism to be "WRONG."
He feels that a multicultural society oppresses its minorities and migrants instead of helping them to assimilate. Further, he blames multiculturalism for making culture hereditary.
So, what's the verdict?
I believe that if a person, regardless of his or her ethnic heritage, does not have an individual standpoint, he is unable to analyze any other culture. It is therefore mandatory that our society as a whole focuses on helping our children develop a strong, healthy, and balanced self-image. Teachers are limited by the student’s family and social environment, which is supposed to provide the individual with the safety and emotional support needed to explore his inner self. Here lays the greatest challenge of them all: most parents are much more concerned about raising good children who fit the expectations of the majority culture rather than raising independent and self-reliant adults who will find their individual purpose in life. Sayings such as “Don’t rock the boat” or “Go with the flow” have become way too common and have lead to the mental conformity of our society.
Religion in Schools
The diminishing role of religion in our public lives has been criticized by many. A large portion of American society feels that the words "In God We Trust" are a cornerstone of American culture and life.
These statements may have the potential of insulting individuals of non-Christian faith and they may possibly limit their freedom, however, one has to consider that the United States as we know them today, were founded as a Christian nation.
Few foreigners would demand for all aspects of religion to be eliminated in an Arab or predominantly Catholic country.
In the U.S. News blog post Religion in Schools Debate Heats Up, two recent court cases are discussed regarding the role of religion in schools.
In Illinois, a judge ruled against state law, which bound students to observe a moment of silence, claiming the law violated the separation of church and state.
The Texas case involved biologists and social conservatives who tried to attain a ruling to limit instruction to the evolution theory and suppress any differing views or possible weaknesses of the evolution theory. The ruling is currently pending.
On the website of the Library of Congress one can view a letter written in 1935 to the school board of Minersville, PA. In the letter a parent explains that his son and daughter refused to salute the flag and pledge allegiance to the flag based on his religious beliefs as a Jehovah's witness.
As a consequence, the school board expelled the two children claiming insubordination.
Is either of the listed cases justified?
Should any sign of religion, be it the smallest religion-inspired thought, be banished from schools?
If so, should students be punished for expressing their religious beliefs while being at school?
One question follows the next.
I believe it is our duty to respect our historic heritage, which is the Christian faith, while providing ample opportunity and tolerance to help students explore the faiths of the world (one being atheism), which includes instruction in biology.
The scientists and non-Christians who foul and suspect officials to attempt to force a certain religion, try the very same with their forms of "religion:" atheism and nihilism.
On a side note: In Germany, religious symbols, such as crucifixes, have been banned from the classrooms, but German students still receive instruction in Christian religion, which is divided into Protestant and Catholic faiths. For students of non-Christian faiths a class in ethics is offered.
These statements may have the potential of insulting individuals of non-Christian faith and they may possibly limit their freedom, however, one has to consider that the United States as we know them today, were founded as a Christian nation.
Few foreigners would demand for all aspects of religion to be eliminated in an Arab or predominantly Catholic country.
In the U.S. News blog post Religion in Schools Debate Heats Up, two recent court cases are discussed regarding the role of religion in schools.
In Illinois, a judge ruled against state law, which bound students to observe a moment of silence, claiming the law violated the separation of church and state.
The Texas case involved biologists and social conservatives who tried to attain a ruling to limit instruction to the evolution theory and suppress any differing views or possible weaknesses of the evolution theory. The ruling is currently pending.
On the website of the Library of Congress one can view a letter written in 1935 to the school board of Minersville, PA. In the letter a parent explains that his son and daughter refused to salute the flag and pledge allegiance to the flag based on his religious beliefs as a Jehovah's witness.
As a consequence, the school board expelled the two children claiming insubordination.
Is either of the listed cases justified?
Should any sign of religion, be it the smallest religion-inspired thought, be banished from schools?
If so, should students be punished for expressing their religious beliefs while being at school?
One question follows the next.
I believe it is our duty to respect our historic heritage, which is the Christian faith, while providing ample opportunity and tolerance to help students explore the faiths of the world (one being atheism), which includes instruction in biology.
The scientists and non-Christians who foul and suspect officials to attempt to force a certain religion, try the very same with their forms of "religion:" atheism and nihilism.
On a side note: In Germany, religious symbols, such as crucifixes, have been banned from the classrooms, but German students still receive instruction in Christian religion, which is divided into Protestant and Catholic faiths. For students of non-Christian faiths a class in ethics is offered.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Makers and Innovators of the American Educational Arena
The list of educational "makers" and innovators is long and frequented by many famous individuals such as Horace Mann, Cotton Mather, Booker T. Washington, E.D. Hirsch Jr., John Dewey, Catherine Beecher, and Deborah Meier, just to name a few.
While all of the educators listed on the PBS site are worthy of an homage, I have chosen to pay tribute to Linda Brown Thompson whom I feel indebted to for making my own education possible.
Linda Brown Thompson is the daughter of Rev. Oliver Brown who was among several African American families in Topeka, Kansas contacted by the NAACP to bring down the "separate but equal" educational system of the 1950's.
At that time Linda was in third grade and had to walk twenty blocks in order to get to the nearest all-Black school, while an all-White school was within one block's distance.
Without wanting to take anything away from any of the other makers and innovators of the educational realm, I admire Mrs. Brown Thompson the most, because she and her family were actual victims of racial segregation and discrimination, yet found the strength and courage to contest racial segregation in what is now known as Brown v. Board of Education.
As significant as E.D. Hirsh Jr. or Horace Mann's contributions were to our educational system, they were also rather idealistic, designed to promote Anglo-American culture, and were not birthed out of the pain, frustration, and humiliation the Brown family had to endure.
With his website American Education History Tour and his book "Underground History of American Education," John Gatto challenges our preconceived notions about said innovators and the purpose of our modern education system.
He deems that the true makers of American Education were industrialists and capitalists such as Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan whose singular goal it was to produce easy-to-manipulate consumers and efficient human capital.
I did find his comparisons to the Nazi schools in Germany overblown and his statement that American schools are "antechambers to Hell" simply abominable.
However, I felt as if many of the author's assertions provided me with valuable information on our education system and my role as an educator.
It is undeniable that we, as educators, encounter students (of all ages) who seem to have a hard time to think for themselves, on a daily basis.
John Gatto provides the following explanation: "Since bored people are the best consumers, school had to be a boring place, and since childish people are the easiest customers to convince, the manufacture of childishness, extended into adulthood, had to be the first priority of factory schools."
Could the inability of today's student body to think critically and independently be a century-old invention to fill the pockets of this nation's 2 percent?
On the other hand, aren't we putting too much responsibility on our schools (and educators)?
Without the shift of responsibility away from the individual family to the school system, this mass-indoctrination would have never been possible.
While all of the educators listed on the PBS site are worthy of an homage, I have chosen to pay tribute to Linda Brown Thompson whom I feel indebted to for making my own education possible.
Linda Brown Thompson is the daughter of Rev. Oliver Brown who was among several African American families in Topeka, Kansas contacted by the NAACP to bring down the "separate but equal" educational system of the 1950's.
At that time Linda was in third grade and had to walk twenty blocks in order to get to the nearest all-Black school, while an all-White school was within one block's distance.
Without wanting to take anything away from any of the other makers and innovators of the educational realm, I admire Mrs. Brown Thompson the most, because she and her family were actual victims of racial segregation and discrimination, yet found the strength and courage to contest racial segregation in what is now known as Brown v. Board of Education.
As significant as E.D. Hirsh Jr. or Horace Mann's contributions were to our educational system, they were also rather idealistic, designed to promote Anglo-American culture, and were not birthed out of the pain, frustration, and humiliation the Brown family had to endure.
With his website American Education History Tour and his book "Underground History of American Education," John Gatto challenges our preconceived notions about said innovators and the purpose of our modern education system.
He deems that the true makers of American Education were industrialists and capitalists such as Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan whose singular goal it was to produce easy-to-manipulate consumers and efficient human capital.
I did find his comparisons to the Nazi schools in Germany overblown and his statement that American schools are "antechambers to Hell" simply abominable.
However, I felt as if many of the author's assertions provided me with valuable information on our education system and my role as an educator.
It is undeniable that we, as educators, encounter students (of all ages) who seem to have a hard time to think for themselves, on a daily basis.
John Gatto provides the following explanation: "Since bored people are the best consumers, school had to be a boring place, and since childish people are the easiest customers to convince, the manufacture of childishness, extended into adulthood, had to be the first priority of factory schools."
Could the inability of today's student body to think critically and independently be a century-old invention to fill the pockets of this nation's 2 percent?
On the other hand, aren't we putting too much responsibility on our schools (and educators)?
Without the shift of responsibility away from the individual family to the school system, this mass-indoctrination would have never been possible.
Aren't mom and dad the most influential "education makers" and innovators, after all?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
