Referring to an incident in which a vegan teacher showed her class a PEDA video, Brittany wrote, “The sharing of such controversial opinions may lead to mistaken perceptions and accusatory beliefs.” She then posed the question: Can you think of a time when your teachers may have shared an opinion to this degree with your class and what effects did it have, if any?
I honestly don’t think I can recall a time when I personally faced this situation with a teacher. I will say that if a teacher is speaking about such opinions as anything but just that—opinions—that is highly inappropriate. If a teacher is speaking about his personal opinions as if it is the right way to think and other opinions are wrong, that is unacceptable. That being said, I also feel like learning about other people’s opinions can help us to better form our own, or better understand the ones we have already formed. I think if a teacher has an opinion that is different from the norm, they should be free to share it as long as they are willing to accept that it is not everyone’s opinion. If a teacher is vegan and wants to share why that is with his students, I find that acceptable as long as he is also willing to listen to the opposing opinions of his students and not try to force his beliefs on them as absolute truth. After all, there have been plenty of teachers who were ostracized and worse for believing in, for instance, evolution. Where would the world be if those teachers had just kept silent and pretended to believe in Creationism because evolution was a controversial topic?
Question in response: Do you think students are more likely to assume their teachers are always correct, or to question them?
Courtney asked, Would independent learning be beneficial for a majority or would this lead to academic catastrophe or complication? What could happen to a person’s motivation when it is completely up to them to learn and absorb the material without the presence of a professor or fellow classmates?
I definitely think that independent learning is NOT meant for the masses. For one thing, many students in the public school system are only there because they are being forced to be there, and have no interest in attending classes or learning. If such students were in charge of furthering their own education, it simply would not happen. Those kids aside, though, even students who enjoy learning might struggle with independent learning. For instance, I decided to take an online psychology course this past semester. Psychology is my major and I thoroughly enjoy studying it. Even so, I ended up falling behind and doing badly in the course because of it. Some people just don’t do well with time management and keeping themselves on track. I’m one of them. Furthermore, I think a system based solely on independent learning would not be as beneficial because human interaction in an important part of school. I think discussing ideas about the material being learned and being social with fellow students is healthy.
Question in Response: How important has social interaction been for you throughout your scholastic career?
In classrooms all across the country there are little plastic cages with hamsters and gerbils trotting away on their wheels. Turtles or frogs or fish sit in aquariums minding their own business while young eager eyes peer in at them and high-pitched voices argue over whose turn it is to sprinkle a pinch of food into the water. Or, as was the case with my private school in Vermont, a few dogs and cats traipse the halls looking to be pet and played with by someone who isn’t stuck sitting in a desk at the time. In some schools, the animals are sent home with students to be taken care of—a tool meant to teach responsibility. In other schools, the pet in question is kept in the classroom as a sort of companion for the students. I have never seen any evidence, however, that keeping animals in class improves learning in any way.
I’m wondering if any of you think there are benefits to keeping pets in the classroom? What are they?
Emily wrote in her blog: We don't pay people based on how valuable their job is, because we give the most money to athletes and movie stars instead of firefighters and teachers. So, why do we pay some workers more than others?
The answer to this question is obvious to me. People who bring more money in get paid more money. People buy tickets to go see athletes and movie stars perform. Their names sell merchandise like shirts and figurines. That’s also why people in those careers who are not as well known don’t make the same exorbitant amount of money as more popular and recognizable stars. Teachers and firefighters provide a greater service, yes, but those services don’t result in any sum of money being made. Unfortunately, it is all a business and based off of profits.
Question in response: What are some ways you can think of to get more recognition for those in occupations such as teaching and fire fighting that don’t receive as much money for their admirable work?
In my high school in Texas, we did not use block scheduling. We signed up for eight classes at the beginning of the year, and every single day we attended all eight classes, from September through May. We took midterms for all eight in December before winter break, and took finals for them at the end of the year. When I moved to Vermont, however, it was completely different. I hadn’t even HEARD of block scheduling before, and it took me ages to get used to it. Instead of taking eight classes throughout the year, we took three every day for one semester and a different three every day during the second semester. We had midterms for our fall classes in October and the finals in December. Then when we came back from break in January we start a whole new set of classes that had midterms in March and finals at the end of the year. This is, of course, not unlike the system here at MCLA. The strange thing, though, was that we also had two classes that we attended every other day throughout the entire school year that had midterms before winter break and finals before school let out for the summer.
On the one hand, I liked block scheduling because if I was taking a class I didn’t like, it only lasted one semester and I didn’t have to keep sitting through it all year. On the other hand, when I took a class I really liked I hated that it ended so soon.
Did your school have block scheduling? Do you think block scheduling is a better or worse idea than the tradition system?
Mary posed the question, Who is happier? The person who goes to school for a long time and then goes into the workforce, or the person who learns from life?
In my opinion, if a person went to school and got their degree in, for instance, psychology and then ended up not making a successful career out of it and instead was only making enough to live off of or—worse—had to get a job outside their field in order to support themselves, they would not be as happy as someone who forewent school in favor of starting a life and exploring different experiences. That is to say, if you are going to be stuck in a less-than-glamorous job anyway and working just to make ends meet, I think you would be happier having skipped all that time spent in school instead of out in the world.
On the other hand, say you are one of the people who goes to school, gets his degree, and is highly successful in his field and makes a good amount of money and gets recognized as being influential and whatnot. I think that person would be happier than someone who forewent school in order to start living their life and seeking out new experiences and ended up a part of the average working class. The problem is, when we enter college we don’t know which one we will end up being; the one who gets a degree and makes it big, or the one who gets a degree and ends up a part of the working class anyway.
Question in response: Do you think it takes a great teacher or a great student to achieve greatness? That is, do you think a great teacher could make a successful student out of someone who is not interested in learning?
The average American public school works on a semester system; you go to school for four months, have a few weeks off in the winter, then go to school for another four months, then have a few months off for summer. However, some schools use a trimester system instead, wherein students go to school for three months, have a month off, then go for three more months, followed by another month break, another three months in school, and another month break before the year school year starts. It is thought that by having the curriculum more spaced out and eliminating a lengthy break in between scholastic years that students will learn more effectively and better remember the information that they learn. I have never personally attended a school with a trimester system, but the thought intrigues me. I feel like it would be easier to deal with the workload if I have month-long breaks every three weeks instead of week-long breaks scattered throughout the school year. I also agree that students would forget information less easily if there wasn’t such a long summer break.
My question is this: Why do you think the semester system is more popular in schools than the trimester system?
Mike asked after a rather lengthy blog: Do you remember more from stricter, hard-grading, coercive teachers? Cool, enticing teachers? Any other type of teachers? Have you felt your attitude about certain teachers/teaching styles has shifted since beginning college?
When I think about these questions, the best way for me to answer them is by looking at the science teachers I’ve had over the years. Science is definitely the subject I’ve struggled with all of my academic career, and I’ve experienced many different teaching styles throughout it. In middle school, I was taught Earth Science by a man named Scott who was off the walls and joking around all the time, but had a strict grading policy and hard tests. This was ok, though, because he always found a cool way to help us relate to the information. The same went for my ninth grade Biology teacher. Although the material in both classes was difficult for me, I did well because of the teachers’ styles. When I took chemistry in tenth grade, my teacher had hard tests and graded harshly, but she wasn’t nearly as engaging and just regurgitated information for us. I struggled a great deal in that class. In eleventh and twelfth grade I had the same teacher—Ms. Spring—for courses in environmental studies and geology. Ms. Spring’s grading was very easy, and she was nice and passionate, but not particularly engaging. I did very well in her classes throughout the years. Looking back on it all now, I definitely remember information best from the two teachers that were crazy and engaging but tough graders. If the work was easy, I would have just done what I needed to get an A and then forgotten about it. Instead, I really learned what they taught me.
Question: Should students be allowed to switch out of a class just because they don’t like the teacher, even if there hasn’t been any real problems between the student and teacher?
In the last ten years, several schools across the country have been implementing “no homework policies.” After reading up some on the reasons for doing this, it seemed to come down to one of two things. Some schools eliminate homework and instead increase the length of the school day, believing that students do not learn effectively from homework and would benefit more from spending that time in the classroom instead. Other schools, however, have eliminated homework in favor of promoting more time spent outside playing and with family. I personally think the latter is perfectly reasonable and that no homework policies are a great idea. However, many people argue that doing homework cements concepts learned during the day in students’ brains. I suppose this does sort of make sense, since it gives students a chance to practice the material and discover any questions they might still have. Question: What do you think? Does homework help, or should no homework policies be put in place? Should school hours increase if they are?
Question: Should there be a core requirement to graduate high school? Why or why not? If so, what classes would it be made up of?
I view myself as having a moderate standpoint on this issue. On the one hand, I do believe that requiring a student to participate in a variety of classes is food for them; it might get them involved in something they would not normally pick for themselves—something that they truly enjoy once they give it a chance and might even pursue as a major in college. Furthermore, I believe that a diverse curriculum is more mentally engaging and that it is better if students are using multiple areas of their brains. If a student were allowed to pick all of the classes they wanted, the majority of them would probably choose curriculums for themselves that are either mostly creative arts or mostly concrete subjects such as math and science. This is because we tend to enjoy what we are good at, and most people are better either with the creative side of their brain or the side that processes logic.
On the other hand, I think that the outlined curriculum in public schools is much too rigid. Most high schools have a set science program that requires a student to take biology, chemistry and physics as their science courses. I think there should be more choices for students, such as environmental classes.
Of course, there are some classes that really are a requisite for succeeding in college. For instance, if students were not required to take standard English classes, they would not know how to write papers effectively (among other things).
Question in response: Who should get to decide what classes are offered in a school?
When we’re kids we receive a period in the school day both for lunch and for recess. Once you move on from elementary school, however, recess is taken away. Furthermore, the lunch periods in many middle and high schools are shorter than those in elementary school. The norm seems to be that high school students get between 30 and 40 minutes for lunch. In my middle school, we only received 20 minutes. In my high school in Texas (where I spent freshman and sophomore year), we received a full hour. At the high school I attended in Vermont for my junior and senior years, we received half an hour. I remember thinking in middle school that 20 minutes was barely enough time to go through the lunch line and sit down. I felt similarly when I had the half hour lunch period in Vermont. When I had an hour for lunch in Texas, there was plenty of time to go through the lines, eat, and then spend some time catching up on homework or sitting outside in the sun. I preferred this partly because I could eat at a less agitated pace and partly because it gave me time in the middle of the day to relax—like recess used to be a time for that in elementary school. I feel as though having that time during a 7 or 8 hour day of classes is just as important to learning as attending those classes. It made it easier to concentrate for the rest of the day and gave me time to shake off the stress and tiredness of the classes beforehand. I often find myself wondering why recess is something restricted to young children, and why middle and elementary schools are so reluctant to offer a more extended lunch period.
Question: Do you think having extended lunch periods or some form of recess in middle and high schools would be beneficial or harmful to the education system?
Every school has a different ratio of students to teachers. There are a few factors that influence this. For instance, different regions have different ratios. My public school in Austin, Texas had roughly 30 students in each class because it was in a more populated area, whereas my public school in Vermont had no more than 20 due to the fact that it was in a less populated area. Whether a school is public or private also influences the student/teacher ratio; the private school in my town in Vermont had between 8 and 10 students in each class. On the other hand, many colleges have classes of up to 200 students. Many people think that learning is more effective in schools where the student to teacher ratio is lower—that is to say, when there are fewer students assigned to a teacher, those students will do better than if there were more kids in the class.
I understand that a teacher can focus more closely on his students’ needs if he has less students to focus on. However, I always felt smothered in schools where I was in a smaller class. I wanted to be able to work more independently than my teachers allowed and also felt as though my teachers were too involved in my personal life. I preferred to be in classes where there was more separation between myself and my teachers.
My question is this: Do you feel like you would benefit more from a class that has a smaller number of students? Why or why not?
If a piece of music is more beautiful the second or third time it is heard, then is improvisation less beautiful? I think that when you hear a piece of music for the first time, there are many things you might miss in it—certain nuances that aren’t as obvious as other parts of the song. For instance, you might not hear the baseline because the guitar riff is more prominent. You might not catch a certain line of lyrics the first time around. The more you listen to the song, the more you hear because you can focus on different things each time.
Despite this, I do not think improvisation is any less beautiful than a piece you can listen to over and over. Improvisation is beautiful in its own way because it takes an amazing amount of skill and courage to just play with no notes or any other directions in front of you to refer to. Improvisation is beautiful because it is new every time, so it never gets boring or old.
My question in response is this: Why do you think so many people are afraid to put themselves out there and give improvisational performances?
The other day I was watching a television special on VH1 called “I Love the 80s.” I’m sure some of you have also seen this. For those of you who haven’t, it’s a program where all these celebrities sit and talk about all the things that were popular in the 80s or important events that happened then. One thing they discussed that I found extremely interesting was the fact that there were many schools in the 80s that had classes for what was called African American Vernacular English. This was more commonly referred to as “Black Vernacular English,” “Black English,” or “Ebonics.” Basically, students went to classes that taught English but as a black person was perceived to speak it.
Those in favor of Ebonics state that the language has distinctive vocabulary and verb tenses that separate it from “Standard English” (what is normally taught in schools), and that it has specific pronunciation features along definable patterns. These factors are thought to have been adapted from Creole languages as well as other West African tongues. In 1974, the Conference on College Composition and Communication argued that students had a right to their own language. In 1979 a federal judge ruled in favor of Ebonics, stating that when teaching black children to read and write, schools should be adjusting to the children’s dialect and that it is unfair to expect a child to adjust to the school instead. The same judge commented that by neglecting the black students’ language, schools were contributing to the failure of such students to read and use Standard English proficiently. This made sense to a lot of people, and many believed that the use of Ebonics classes would bring down the illiteracy rate among African Americans.
My question to you all is this, Do you agree with the judge’s viewpoint? Why or why not?
Emily asked: Do you think the environment affects one's ability to improvise? I definitely think this is the case. Oftentimes, we feel more comfortable performing anything—improvisational or otherwise—in front of people we don’t know, rather than in front of our peers. People who are comfortable going on stage in front of a hundred strangers freeze up when they are asked to do the same in front of their classmates. This is because we would rather mess up in front of strangers who we will most likely not see again than people we see regularly. The less you know a person, the less you talk to them, the less they can express negative judgments to you about your performance.
I think this anxiety is especially prevalent when students are asked to perform something that they either developed themselves or are making up on the spot. Again, this is because we fear negative judgments. If one plays a part in a play, and his friend tells him after the performance that he didn’t like the play, one would take it more personally if it was a piece one wrote himself. On the other hand, if one is performing a piece that someone else wrote and his friend dislikes it, one can simply shrug it off saying, “Well I didn’t write it,” thus excusing him from any blame for the lackluster show. It takes more courage for a person to share his own work with others than it does to merely display someone else’s.
My question in response is this: Do you think your peers are likely to judge you more harshly than a stranger would?
Jacob asked, Is there a laudable quality to music that cannot be found to any degree in sports?
I think if someone were to answer this in the affirmative, they would try to say that the quality the arts possess that sports lack is the call for creativity. After all, both require teamwork to create a triumphant end product. In both one must master a set of specialized skills to perform well. In either one, the person in question can choose to either follow directions or strike out on their own. Both can be played for either competition or for fun in your spare time. Some people would argue, though, that sports do not use the creativity that is required in the arts. However, I think this is false. When playing sports, you have a game plan. There is a clear set of steps you must execute. But sometimes things go wrong and you have to think on your feet. Is this not the same as improvisation in theatre?
Question in response: Should kids be forced to participate in sports or gym in school? What are the benefits?
Apparently in many schools across the nation teachers are being instructed to cease their usage of red pens for correcting purposes. It is believed that when kids see the red marks—whether they may be indicating something negative or positive—they immediately start feeling anxious and it is damaging to their psyches. The explanation behind this is that the color red is often associated with negative things such as anger, blood, etc.
The theory goes that if teachers use another color to make marks on papers and tests, children will not be as anxious upon receiving their corrected work and will therefore not be discouraged in their studies. My question is, Do you think this theory is sound? Do you support its implementation?
In my high school biology class, we were instructed to dissect worms, frogs, and pigs. It was disgusting. It smelled horrible and there was slime everywhere and quite frankly, I didn’t give a damn how similar our organs were or what I could learn from it. However, I did not morally object to the actual act of dissecting these animals; I was assured that they had not been farmed for the purpose of being killed so we could dissect them. I was told that they died naturally and were preserved. Perhaps I am just naïve and being duped, but I cling to this assurance anyway. Many people, however, object to the dissection of animals in schools regardless of the way said organisms are obtained. They insist that schools should switch to computer programs that allow students to digitally dissect frogs and other organisms instead.
Do you think such a switch would be realistic? Where do you stand on the grounds of dissections in schools?
Shelby asked, Should we be required to provide universal free lunch to all students?
I really think putting a universal free lunch for students into effect in public schools would be a huge mistake. It would be an incredibly expensive venture, considering how many kids are in the public education system. In order to do that, taxes would have to be raised—something that nobody wants in today’s economy. Yes, it is true that some kids can’t afford to buy lunch and don’t eat during the day because of it. That is unfortunate. But I think a better idea would be to try and set up some sort of need-based aid for those kids.
Besides, if lunch were being provided to students for free every day, the food would suck because they’d be buying and making cheap things.
Question in response: Should schools be serving only nutritional food, or merely providing a nutritional option along with others that are not as healthy?
There is a wide range of punishments that have been used in schools throughout the ages. Catholic nuns use rulers to hit the knuckles of their students. Teachers in one-room schoolhouses would take a stick to the behinds of children in the early 1900s. Dozens of kids wrote hundreds of lines in English grammar schools. There’s time-out, detention, suspension, expulsion. Psychologists have been studying for years the effect of punishment on both behavior and the developing psyches of kids. Different findings are published and people continue to debate. So here’s my question for you.
How harsh should punishments within the educational setting be?
Kim asked, How important is it that students enjoy their education and should this be a goal in teaching?
I think it is very important that students enjoy their education. The more they enjoy learning, the more active and attentive they will be in the classroom. This is why students often earn better grades when teachers have a more hands-on teaching style; students are more invested so they learn more and receive better grades. When teachers are boring, students fall asleep, zone out, day dream, etc. Basically what I’m trying to say is that the more interesting the material is, the more interested the student will be. I think it should be the teacher’s job to make the material interesting and engage students in learning. Therefore, yes, I believe this should be the goal in teaching.
My question in response would be, Do you think it is possible to make any subject fun to learn, or that there are some subjects that are just doomed to be boring?
So I have a little problem with the educational system. And it goes like this. Females are more often given the job of teaching at a non-college level, whereas males are more often given jobs as professors at colleges. As if this isn’t bad enough, women are still getting paid less than men for teaching at every level, from elementary school to college. Why is this still happening? In my opinion, women and men should be getting equal pay for equal work.
Question: Why do you think women are still getting paid less than men? Do you support this? Why or why not?
Drew asked, Are we afraid of exiting the box because of our fear of changing social structures?
I think he brings up an excellent point. So much of what humans do on a day-to-day basis is done simply because people have told us all our lives that is the way things are supposed to be. All through history, people’s actions have been dictated by what society deems acceptable. You can see this especially well when looking at gender issues or issues of sexual orientation. It is also evident when one examines anything from trends in clothing throughout the ages to the trends is what works are chosen for an art museum. I often worry that humans are becoming incapable of thinking for themselves—can only follow patterns and orders.
Question: What is one thing you were never taught in school that you wish had been a part of the curriculum?
In many countries all over the world, students are taught more than one language starting at a very young age in primary or elementary schools. I remember when I lived and went to school in Texas, they started a basic Spanish program when I was in fourth grade. It was integrated into the curriculum for all the grades but kindergarten. However, I know this is unusual and most kids in the public education system do not start studying other languages until middle school or high school. At that stage, there is typically only a requirement of two years of language classes. In other countries, they study different languages throughout their entire public education, all the way until college.
My question is: Should American schools be more focused on teaching students different languages? Should we be teaching languages at an earlier age?When talking about whether students should be picking what they study in their classes versus being assigned certain curriculum and prerequisites, Courtney asked: My question is what do others believe about blending the two? What is a good balance if there is any?
I believe that our education system should be set up like an upside-down funnel. In the beginning—elementary school—the education should be broad and universal. The majority of the work should be assigned by the educational system. As students get older and pass through the grades, education should start to become more specialized to give the student a chance to explore specific interests they have. In high school, for example, there should be some core requirements; students should have to take a certain number of social studies credits, math credits, etc. but students should for the most part be in control of what within those areas they are studying based on the interests they wish to pursue. College would be the tip of of the funnel. I believe that in college students should be in almost full control of what they study and the activities they pursue based on their career choices and extracurricular interests.
My question in response is: We all have different “strong suits,” things we are better at. We also have things we struggle with. How should it be handled if a student is struggling with a particular subject matter?
Bryan asked, What do you find to be the biggest problem with reading in today’s formal education system?
I think the biggest problem with reading in today’s schools is that students are not free to choose what they read. In the majority of high school English classes, the curriculum consists of a list of books that the class reads and discusses one by one. This ensures that the students study a wide range of literature. The thought behind this is a good one. After all, many students would stick to reading modern teenage dramas or fantasies instead of reading older classics or exploring European authors.
On the other hand, when students have absolutely no say in what they read, they can often have trouble getting invested in the text. They may not take any interest in it or might resent being assigned the book. I know that happened to me when I was in high school. It’s hard to appreciate something you’re being forced to analyze.
What I think would be a good solution is if curriculums were opened up into more of a book report style. For every unit, students receive a short list of different texts they can choose to read and analyze that all surround a certain theme. For instance, in the first three weeks, the students would be given a list of Romantic works to choose from. The next three weeks, they would pick from a list of classic plays. Etc.
My question in response is this: Do you think it is more beneficial to read aloud in class as a group, or to read silently to yourselves?
In my elementary school in Texas, there was a “Gifted and Talented” program. Basically, students who tested highly on state exams were taken out of their normal classrooms twice a few for a few hours and put in a room together. We were given puzzles to do and extra lessons on top of our regular work.
I often wonder how other students felt about the special treatment awarded to the “gifted and talented” kids. Did they feel resentment? Did they even care? I often resented being given more work than my fellow students, but understand that it was meant to keep me working to my full capabilities.
My question is this: Do you think these sorts of programs are more helpful or hindering in the educational system?
We often see in the public education system a clear division between males and females. This happens from a very young age. In elementary schools, boys and girls tend to participate in separate activities. The exception to this rule would be in cases of role-playing—such as when children play house together—and even then there are very distinct gender roles that the children tend to stick to.
This trend continues through the grades. At middle school dances, the boys and girls stand on opposite walls, trying to figure out what to do with themselves and each other. In high school, boys and girls play on separates sports teams. In cases such as baseball and softball, the males and females don’t even play the same sport. Rules for females are different than those for males. There are different expectations of how males should dress versus how females should dress, and how each gender should behave.
These societal norms are partly present because they are reinforced by teachers and the school system; little girls and little boys are treated differently from the time they first enter school.
My question to you all is this: Do you think that this division between the sexes in schools is a positive thing or a negative thing?
